Hi,

I've read JD's review of TRoS and a fair amount of the mudslinging that resulted in the RPGnet forum. The review is not well written, seemingly designed to be controversial or argumentative in an effort to draw a readership and response. All responses to the article have been treated as if the responder has risen to the bait and is attacking the author. As such there isn't much value to be gained from reading through the threads...

On the other hand, I do think that it is important that those who understand TRoS extract the points made in the review from the surrounding hyperbole and, rather than saying "you're wrong -- this is how it is meant to work", look at how JD could have arrived at the conclusions he did from reading the rules and playing the game for a few months.

And it is great to see that this is how many people have approached the review on this forum.

Sigurth wrote: The players were not happy. In contrast, with SAs driving the Drama, everyone contributes to the Story, and that makes everyone happy. It is not just the uber-mage or uber-cleric or uber-GM that drives the story.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Secondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

I'm going to address your two final points and given that my opinion is just that and the opinion of a player/GM not the designer...

Thirdly, was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use? To divorce the value of the SA from the degree to which the character holds to that SA? I find the rules contradictory. For instance, I have a character with a Conscience SA of 5. The character acts selfishly and loses a point of Conscience. He now has a Conscience of 4. In what way is this Conscience value of 4 different from the Conscience value of 4 he gets when trading in 1 point of this SA as part of an Attribute-raising exercise? Is the character a more or less Conscience-orientated character under either circumstance or both circumstances?

Finally, I find it restrictive that SAs aren't readily testable like the PAs, MAs, and DAs. The temptation process -- assuming for a moment a world-view where temptation represents a spiritual attack that the character must successfully defend if they are to resist temptation -- would seem to be most obviously resisted by Faith (if the character follows a religion that is opposed to the form of temptation) or Conscience. Yet the SAs have values of 0 through 5 and may or may not represent how strongly the character follows the SA.

A Spiritual Attribute doesn't measure how much the character is committed to an issue, it measures how much the player is. SAs exist solely as a mechanic to encourage player contributions of a particular type. To assess them as just another Attribute is to miss the point.

I now look at this campaign from the TroS perspective of "If your SAs aren't involved why should your character care...?". Would the campaign have worked under TRoS? Would certain PCs have to be asked to take certain SAs as mandatory, so that their hook into the campaign was smooth? Is that an acceptable request, as an alternative to wholly pre-generated PCs?

Secondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with things happening in the campaign in spite of SAs.
For example, Player Characters forced to wander through a desert while their SAs relate to NPCs on the other side of the world. Bad example, but you prob know what I mean

I found this post by Ralph Mazza very interesting and thought I'd quote it here for those who don't want to wade through everything over there:

http://www.rpg.net/forums/phorum/rf08/read.php?f=2191&i=343&t=181

I think it's a very insightful look into what makes RPGs fun.

Author: Ralph Mazza (---.2.30)
Date: 01-29-2004 07:22

Sure, and to be clear, I have no problem at all with TRoS not meeting your preferences. And for 2 very good reasons. First, no game is going to meet everyones preferences; and Second, you are willing to acknowledge that just because it isn't your cup of tea that that doesn't make it a bad game design (a lesson several others in these discussions could learn).

I will say on final comment about "learning the system and how well they learn".

The system isn't particularly hard or difficult to understand. I'll avoid comparisons with the difficulty of other games because that would just open up a whole can of worms. But we aren't talking Phoenix Command here.

What makes me stress the skill required is not because its a particularly difficult skill to learn, but because its a particularly *different* skill to learn (for most gamers, esp those predominately players of D&D).

In a game like D&D there is little you can do to avoid getting hit. There are various pre battle choices you can make to boost your AC, but by and large once the fighting starts whether you get hit or not is more dependent on what your opponent does then what you do. So D&D combat comes down primarily to trading hits. You expect to be hit, its ok to be hit as long as you're hitting the other guy harder.

In TRoS whether a character gets hit or not is more in the hands of the defender than the attacker. Its the defender whose in the drivers seat and the attacker who must use tactics and feints and timing in order to land a blow. In TRoS you don't trade hits. You trade attacks. You trade attacks until one side gains an advantage that they have the courage to exploit and land the blow. I say courage, because most of the time the attack needed to exploit that opening also leaves the attacker vulnerable too.

Its a different mentality. Not a harder mentality.


As far as the "metagame" issue. You and I could probably have some very interesting discussions on the variety of ways Metagame can effect play.

But for purposes of this discussion, I enjoy playing games where my choices as a player impact the success of my character in the game. I find the alternative pretty boring.

If my skills as a player don't matter, if the only deciding factor in whether or not my character lives or dies are the skills written on his sheet and how the dice fall, I see little point. Anyone could play my character. Anyone could pick up the sheet, roll the dice and determine my characters fate.

See, one of the common arguments against metagame is that it detatches the player from the character. For me I find the exact opposite to be true. I care MORE about the character and wanting to play that character when its me determining whether he lives or dies.

This operates on 2 levels for me. First mechanically. As I said if you postulate a game with zero player skill impact on the outcome of a fight, then I feel no attachment to the character at all. It could be anyones character. Anyone could "run" it through the battle and the results will 100% determined mechanically. When its MY choices making the difference, I feel MORE attached.

I know my character will survive because *I'M* going to win. Bob sitting next to me would get killed if he were running the character, but I'm going to save his bacon. I get to feel as a player anxiety from the risk of losing and the thrill from winning. Its the anxiety and thrill of losing or winning a game rather than the anxiety and thrill of losing or winning your life. But its still an emotional connection to the character. I'm feeling what the character is feeling because I know that I live or die based on what I do as a player. I don't feel that in games where the decision is determined solely by character skill level and die rolls. There's no anxiety there for me. There's no thrill there for me. Its just dice hitting the table. Might as well be playing the card game "war".


The second level for me is enjoyment of play. Lets say a character is supposed to love someone and be willing to risk there life for them in the game. Ok, sure I can *play* the character so that the character's actions demonstrate this love. But unless *I* as a player am interested in seeing this relationship develop its not fun to do that. Roleplaying becomes a chore. It becomes work. It becomes going through the motions of "what I'm supposed to do because its on the character sheet" whether or not I'm finding it the least bit fun.

That's why I stressed in my "situation" rant a while ago the importance of hooking the player not the character. I will engage my character in the parts of the setting and situation that *I* find interesting...not whatever parts the character is supposed to find interesting. Who cares what the character finds interesting, its just a piece of paper. It can't high five you for a job well done.

This awareness of what the player finds interesting also is important for the enjoyment of the *group*. I can engage with the story/setting/situation with my character in a way that others at the table can appreciate and enjoy. I can make decisions for my character primarily on the basis of enhancing their fun. Of getting them excited. Of maybe shocking them a little (in a good way). This is all "meta" gaming in the sense that it takes the cues and inputs of what's "right" from the living breathing players at the table rather than some scribling on a piece of dead tree.

IMO a character is just a vehicle for the enjoyment of the play group. It has no life and it has no rights. I have no duty or obligation towards a piece of paper. What I do have is a duty and obligation to the enjoyment of all of the members at the table whom I'm playing with.

That's metagame. That's why I shake my head whenever someone like polaris pipes up with a "metagame is bad" statement of dogma. Its a nonsensical statement to make.

As soon as you admit that the primary purpose of roleplaying is for the people at the table to have fun...you're talking metagame. The interests of the players are paramount.

The entire idea of avoiding metagame to me is like driving from L.A. to Vegas by way of Atlanta. You're in L.A (start of the game). You want to get to Vegas (players having fun)...just drive to Vegas for crying out loud. Why go out of your way to ignore, suppress, or avoid the needs, wants and preferences of the players (by driving to Atlanta i.e. avoiding metagame) when the road to player enjoyment is so much simpler and easier than that.

Good post. The object is for the players to have fun, not the pieces of paper. :-)

I agree that Ralph / Valamir's post was very well stated. I think that for some people he is completely right. The only point I see missing (possibly intentionally), is that for some people process is important to the goal. Less abstractly, for some people maximum fun means minimum metagame. Like many of the other things people fight about, it's a taste issue.

Can TROS work for such people? I suspect it can, but in a more limited set of scenarios than for those who are comfortable with including the metagame (i.e. that subset which avoids the requirement to make metagame decisions which can't be mapped to character decisions).

. . . . . . . -- Eric

edit PS: Decided I wanted to add some context. Ralph's post was originally a response to someone claiming that metagame is never OK. Thus, it was perfectly reasonable to present it as a defense of the position. Didn't want my comment about "possibly intentially" to seem like I was accusing Ralph of anything.

Hey no problem there Eric. The Forge is all about identifying play preferences, seeing them as equally valid, and encouraging people to find people of similiar preference to game with if differences in play style is causeing difficulty.

So absolutely there are people whose source of fun comes from an absence of metagame. One point that I do want to make clear however is this.

I have no problem with people who prefer to play Without MetaGame (WMGs) as long as that is a decision they arrived at rationally. Meaning, they've played alot of different ways, with alot of different people and in the end concluded for themselves that they do, in fact, prefer WMG play.

What I do have a problem with is people who are WMG players forcibly indoctineating new gamers with WMG dogma (through peer pressure and lectures on the "proper" way to play). I firmly believe that WMG play is foriegn to "normal" non gamer sensibilities, and that this period of indoctination is often the reason why potential new players show up once or twice and never go back. Its the WMG zealots who I have BIG issues with, because they IMO are severely damaging to our hobby.



I regards to your question about TRoS working for WMG players, I'd say this. TRoS is not IMO a tool kit design. d20, GURPS, Hero, Tri Stat, Savage Worlds, etc, many of the more popular game systems out there are tool kit designs. By this I mean that each subsystem is reasonably self contained so that with a little work one can lift out one sub system and substitute in something else. In d20s case this is how you get all of those OGL variants like M&M, etc.

This sort of thing is so common (and has been for so long) that many people just assume that any game can be mixed and matched as much as desired.

TRoS, however, is a much more monolithis system. The combat system is not a seperate subsystem from the SA rules and the character advancement rules. One can not simply mix and match with these. They are all fundamentally tied and integrated with each other.

It would require much more careful "surgery" to seperate them.

This is the problem James ran into with his group. He didn't question for a second (and still doesn't) that he could simply lift the SA and character advancement system out of TRoS, drop in an alternative and have the game work. It didn't. And the reason it didn't is because the game is not a tool kit like this.

If one REALLY wanted to make an RPG out of TRoS that didn't use the SA system (and James's version didn't really, he called them SAs but in practice they sound more like Burning Wheel-esque call on traits), then the combat system needs to be reworked. Its the SAs that prevent the game from being a new-character-every-other-session death fest. Without them, modifications are required.

Because combat is such a finely tuned machine, any mechanical changes that seriously reduced its lethality would have some pretty severe ripple effects (unless someone just rewrites the damage tables to have weaker effects).

So yes, I think you could incorporate the mechanical foundation into a WMG game. But you'd need to revise the lethality of the system substantially.

Hi all -

I posted something over in that rpg.net review thread - pardon me for reposting it here, but I thought the folks in this thread might find it interesting.

I was in the game where Ralph got wacked by the kid with a stick. It was an incredible role-playing moment - arrogant knight brought low by youngling with a sword. Not just "a kid" - a Fahal tibes-child with a culture strange and unknown to us, and a toughness that even my Kazak raider found imposing.

System used to support style of play - "meta gaming" in the service of desired game-reward. "Role" and "playing" enhanced by the interplay of charcter, player, GM and system.

That's what TRoS invites you to engage with, and what its' tools will support you in doing. You may not like the way it does it - that's fine. It may not be the goals you're interested in - also fine, and TOTALLY understandable. But obviously, objectively a "bad" game? That's just . . . insane, to my mind.

Gordon

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: Thirdly, was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use? To divorce the value of the SA from the degree to which the character holds to that SA? I find the rules contradictory. For instance, I have a character with a Conscience SA of 5. The character acts selfishly and loses a point of Conscience. He now has a Conscience of 4. In what way is this Conscience value of 4 different from the Conscience value of 4 he gets when trading in 1 point of this SA as part of an Attribute-raising exercise? Is the character a more or less Conscience-orientated character under either circumstance or both circumstances?

Malechi wrote: Yes it was a good idea.. in your example the person has grown somewhat as a result of Spending his SA point. He has increased one of his attributes which can, in turn increase his ability to pursue his ideals/philosophy. The other guy hasn't grown, he's gone backwards.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Finally, I find it restrictive that SAs aren't readily testable like the PAs, MAs, and DAs. (Snip)

Malechi wrote: I think you're making a fundamental error in the way you're understanding the system here. in your example and in most games I know of tests refer back to your core Attributes and in TROS its no different.

Malechi wrote: The test should test the characters inherant core ability to resist whatever the temptation is. In this case its probably Wit or something like that.

Hi,

Alan wrote: A Spiritual Attribute doesn't measure how much the character is committed to an issue, it measures how much the player is.

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: Secondly, in spite of a complete lack of combat training I find it unlikely that I would fight better when confronted by a knife-wielding attacker if the fight was over something I initially considered important. The situation is life-or-death and that would seem to me to be the over-riding consideration.

bcook1971 wrote: To me, SA's are better understood as Heroic Advantage. There's nothing realistic about it, but it satisfies on another level.

Ian.Plumb wrote: In TRoS, how do you test belief?

Cheers.

How do you test belief? You can do it mechanistically (like pendragon), I suppose, but you can also do it in the story. Run actual tests of their behavior - create scenarios where they decide between their SA and something else. Don't make it easy, either. Like if they love a women, make her the type of women who holds the purse-strings, and demands control of all the finances and an accounting of the money her man spends. Then create a scenario where some dirt-poor peasants do something crucial to help your adventurers, and see if the particular player gives all the money to his love, or slips some to the needy peasants.

That was off the top of my head, and maybe not so good, but hopefully it gets the point across. Granted, there are times it would be nice to say "the slut looks pretty; make a chaste roll or you're going off with her for the night", but I think there's something to be said for building it into the story.

-jeff

I'm not sure what you're asking Ian.

The number as it currently stands doesn't measure anything.

As a value it is simply an indication of the frequency with which the player addresses it (and is thus awarded more points) summed with the frequency with which the player spends it. Only indirectly does it measure player committment to anything. Presumeably something that a player really is engaging with will go up faster than the things he is not. But its also possible for a value to simply be horded at a high level with no future engagment, so only tracing the entire history of the value can any conclusion really be drawn.


So in this sense an SA is a binary condition. You either "Are" or you "Aren't", with the number saying nothing about "how much". The bonus that the number supplies to rolls doesn't really represent anything from a simulationist perspective either. It can kind of be thought of as passion or adrenaline if that helps...but in reality its a carrot.

It is nothing more complicated than a reward to the player for engaging with the story.

Engage with the story, get bonus dice used to enhance your character's effectiveness. Don't engage with the story, don't get any bonus dice. In this way even players who normally aren't all that interested in engaging will do so, if for no other reason than getting the dice.

Why are the dice tied to character improvement. Simple. Because in order to work as a reward the value of the reward must be capped (an SA that reaches a score of 30 just overwhelms everything). However, once capped the player is motivated to engage just enough to hit the cap and then has no incentive to keep engageing. So in order to continue to be an effective carrot the value must go down at some point so the player is motivated to keep engageing to get it back up.

TROS is very big on NOT penalizing a player for failing to engage so you can't just take dice away (in most cases), so instead you find a way to encourage the player to spend them voluntarily, what would a player be willing to spend them on...voila character improvement.

The values are nothing more than an incredibly effective, high powered, pavlovian reward system. They don't MEAN anything.


So as for being testable...how would you suggest testing a binary condition?

Now, do please note that the bonus dice from SAs are not restricted to combat. They can be spent on any kind of roll. So if you're asking a player to roll to resist temptation and you deem that his Faith would apply (because its a temptation his Faith preaches against), then simply allow him to roll his Faith SA as bonus dice in the temptation roll. Voila...effect achieved.

However, again...this is not a matter of someone with *stronger* Faith having an advantage over someone with *weaker*. The Faith itself is binary. The number of dice is just a purely metagame reward for a player who's taken the time to roleplay his Faith appropriately.

I'm not sure I'm actually answering your question though...

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: In TRoS, how do you test belief?

toli wrote: I think TROS does test your 'current level' of belief throught the mechanic of SA's aiding you in time of stress. If you believe strongly in a cause, you get bonus die...and all that. That is a great mechanic (as I think most of us agree...).

Ian.Plumb wrote: Should TRoS have testable attributes that relate to the spirit of the character? Should TRoS cater for spiritual development as it does mental and physical development?

I would agree that Theology is separate from belief. ONe can understand the theological basis for some thing with out believing in it.

I would say if the belief doesn't figure into the character's SA's, its not that strong a belief that it really affects the character's life in a way that requires an in game mechanic. Switching from one religion to the next would be the Player's choice and have no earth shattering impacts on the PC unless it is taken as a new Faith SA. In the absense of a newly formed SA, the belief would simply be roleplayed. How strongly the character believes the new religion would be played out in how the Player decides to play the PC.

NT

Hi,

Valamir wrote: I'm not sure what you're asking Ian.

Valamir wrote: The number as it currently stands doesn't measure anything.

Valamir wrote: Why are the dice tied to character improvement. (Snip)

Valamir wrote: TROS is very big on NOT penalizing a player for failing to engage so you can't just take dice away (in most cases), (Snip)

Valamir wrote: So if you're asking a player to roll to resist temptation and you deem that his Faith would apply (because its a temptation his Faith preaches against), then simply allow him to roll his Faith SA as bonus dice in the temptation roll. Voila...effect achieved.

Temptation: Willpower, natch.

I'm not seeing how this is a difficult question. You are trying to resist something, so it's a matter of how strong your will is. If you're weak-willed, you give in easily. If you're strong willed, you don't. TN determined by how strong the temptation is. If it's a recurring or constant temptation, make it an extended contest, requiring multiple successes to "win" for the time being.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

Page 67 seems to go against what you are saying here. Conscience, Drive, Faith, Passion all drop when the character fails to engage given the right opportunity. This makes sense to me -- there is no free lunch, or at least there shouldn't be.

I'm happy to allow the Faith SA to be used as bonus dice in the temptation process -- but what skill is used for the underlying roll?

Having resisted the temptation, how do we indicate that the character is less likely to succumb to temptation in the future?

Having traded in 5 points of Faith SA to bump an attribute, why is the character more likely to succumb to temptation when it next presents? What are we simulating here?

How does the believer who doesn't centre their life around their belief (no SA, representing the ordinary adherent to the religion rather than the cleric or paladin of the religion) measure their degree of belief, their capacity to resist temptation?

Neither of these functions is inherently linked to or even particularly served by the SA point trading mechanism.

This has become a suprisingly complicated thread, so I can't even think to address everything or do it justice, but a few things stuck out to me.

[quote'"Ian.Plumb"]In TRoS, how do you test belief?

This has been assessed pretty well by a lot of folks, but here's my take on it. In TROS, you assess belief in the same way that you do IRL. You put it to a test of real-life priorities.

I'm going to use an example from my own life here. I am, as many of you know, a practicing Mormon. This religion, more than most Christian religions, is a lifestyle. The tennants of my faith dictate to some degree what I drink and how I spend large quantities of my time. When I was called by the leadership of the church to spend two years as a missionary in Poland at my own expense, I went. During that time I was something like a minister, a monk, and a door-to-door teacher. The rules--dogmatic or otherwise--that I was asked to obey as a missionary were very, very strict.

This was, of course, a test of my faith. What does God care if I get up at 6:30 am every day? Even now, I don't think that he does...but it was required of me by the institution in which I place my faith. Thus my faith was tested.

In TROS, it works the same way. SAs are tested when the players are given a chance to "put their money where their mouth is." Is it a test that the GM can predict? No, but then again neither is a roll. Is it a trait that can be rolled against something? No, it's not, and if it was, it would reduce the power of a player's decision in the story and in play.

Notice how difficult it was to come up with an MA that really suited a check against temptation? Would you use a measure of the character's mental reflex and sharpness to test against temptation? Would you use a measure of how quickly the character learns to resist temptation? Would you use a measure of mental endurance and determination to resist temptation?

...was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use?

Nice answer. I think I've been pretty clear on what I think of metagame elements, so no surprise that I agree entirely.

As a thought, you may want to consider splitting Ian's series of posts and responses off from the original review commentary thread for archival purposes. They're certainly worthy of a thread of their own.

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: I'm happy to allow the Faith SA to be used as bonus dice in the temptation process -- but what skill is used for the underlying roll?

Valamir wrote: Good question. There is no skill that immediately comes to mind. But one can get a good idea from looking over the existing skills. When trying to persuade someone the target resists using persuade or a default. When trying to intimidate someone the target resists using intimidate or a default. Same for winning debates with orate and a couple of others. If memory serves the default for all of these are 10 (or maybe 11).

An exception to this is the Sincerity Skill which is an attempt to convince someone with lies. I believe the TN there is just a flat 8.

So taking these as a precedent I'd say setting a TN of 8, 9 or 10 depending on the severity of the temptation.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Having resisted the temptation, how do we indicate that the character is less likely to succumb to temptation in the future?

Valamir wrote: Hmmm. I'm not sure that is a reasonable thing to expect as a blanket effect. Would the target be less likely? Maybe. But I could just as easily see the target becoming MORE likely reflecting repeated exposure wearing him down.

Valamir wrote: The best idea I have would be if the character succeeded with extra successes on the initial resistance roll, that those extra successes get to be kept as bonus dice to use on a future roll.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Having traded in 5 points of Faith SA to bump an attribute, why is the character more likely to succumb to temptation when it next presents? What are we simulating here?

Valamir wrote: Well, as I attempted to explain in some detail in the post above. Nothing. There is nothing being simulated here. (Snip)

Ian.Plumb wrote: How does the believer who doesn't centre their life around their belief (no SA, representing the ordinary adherent to the religion rather than the cleric or paladin of the religion) measure their degree of belief, their capacity to resist temptation?

Valamir wrote: Sounds like a case for a Will Power vs assigned Target Number roll to me.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Neither of these functions is inherently linked to or even particularly served by the SA point trading mechanism.

Valamir wrote: I don't know that I agree with that. I gave what I think is a particularly good reason for the linkage, but perhaps it got lossed in the simultaneous mistake I made about losing points. (Snip)

Valamir wrote: Relying on penalties for bad roleplaying I don't think will do that, a) because players won't necessarily give you opportunities to penalize them, and b) no one really likes a system that relies on the GM punishing the player.

Valamir wrote: Having the SAs be spent when they're used so they have to be replaced I don't think will work as well either, because a) that doesn't model anything any more realistically anyway and b) it robs the player of being able to excel over the course of an entire battle without worrying about running out of points.

Valamir wrote: Can you think of another way to get players to voluntarily reduce their SAs in order to keep the treadmill running?

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: In TRoS, how do you test belief?

Jake Norwood wrote: This has been assessed pretty well by a lot of folks, but here's my take on it. In TROS, you assess belief in the same way that you do IRL. You put it to a test of real-life priorities.

(Snip example)

In TROS, it works the same way. SAs are tested when the players are given a chance to "put their money where their mouth is." Is it a test that the GM can predict? No, but then again neither is a roll. Is it a trait that can be rolled against something? No, it's not, and if it was, it would reduce the power of a player's decision in the story and in play.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Notice how difficult it was to come up with an MA that really suited a check against temptation? Would you use a measure of the character's mental reflex and sharpness to test against temptation? Would you use a measure of how quickly the character learns to resist temptation? Would you use a measure of mental endurance and determination to resist temptation?

Jake Norwood wrote: The thing is, you don't tempt the character sheet. You tempt the character by tempting the player's desires for that character. Is it "metagame?" I guess it might be, but who cares?

Ian.Plumb wrote: ...was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use?

Jake Norwood wrote: It was the best idea in the lot! The mistake may have been calling the SAs "attributes" at all, instead of "motivations" or "values," but I confess that what I was doing at the time was "new" even for me. See, in the end, the game ends up being "about" whatever the advancement system is "about."

OK, please correct me I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here:

If this is the case, what would you use as the base number of dice for the player?

Valamir wrote: Sounds like a case for a Will Power vs assigned Target Number roll to me.

Really? You'd use the Attribute that reflects the character's level of determination to check an adherent's level of belief? Their capacity to resist temptation? That's interesting. It is probably the best of those available but I wouldn't have thought it was a good measure of the character's capacity to stick to their moral code. In the sense that you'd probably say that politicians are very determined people to have gotten where they are but I wouldn't describe politicians as a particularly moral group. Not that an example makes or breaks a rule -- WP is the most appropriate attribute of those available.

How do you deal with beliefs in DnD?

Actually, fairly well. You don't want to do something, you say so. Someone tries to force you, you make a Will save.

TROS is pretty similar, and I think it's fine.

If you don't have a problem with drinking and whoring, you don't make the check, you just do it.
:)

To me. temptation and such should be based on roleplaying, not rollplaying here. Make something that the player would find tempting, or that the really good roleplayer thinks would tempt the character, and you have a moral situation.

For example, its a lot of fun to take the character that has, say, oaths of poverty or somesuch, and then wave very powerful magic items or tons of gold; the greed that lights up in the players' eyes as they contemplate it is a ton of fun.

But if you feel that it has to be a rolled test, its simple; make it a willpower test with bonus dice where SAs are applicable, against a TN that you think appropriate.

For instance, lets say you are playing a human warrior named, oh, Boromir. Boromir has an SA called "Defend the Fellowship" with 4 dice and a WP of 4.

His friend, Frodo, stumbles and drops a magical ring that he picks up. This hypothetical ring has a magical enchantment on it that makes everyone tempted to pick it up. The Seneschal judges that its temptation power is a 7, but it constantly exerts its temptation whenever it becomes reachable; a single failed test could mean the person falls under its temptive control.

Boromir picks up the ring and rolls his test. He rolls 8 dice against the 9, and gets one success. With Aragorn's intercession, he barely manages to shrug off its effects and give it back to frodo.

(Could be fun to give the ring score of dice it rolls on an opposed test against Boromir and others over extended period of time too).

Point being, make it a WP test if you don't want to RP it out; set a TN or make it opposed.

And in addition your character may have such flaws as Addiction or Lecherousness to make the choices easier.

Temptation in TROS is more than just freeform roleplaying, even if you don't roll for it. The incentive of SA advancement encourages the player to act in accord with his SA's. Therefore, if you bait the temptation with SA rewards, you are tempting the player too. SA's help to put the player more into the mind of the character. What the character wants, the player wants too, therefor you can tempt the player by tempting the character.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

Jake Norwood wrote: The thing is, you don't tempt the character sheet. You tempt the character by tempting the player's desires for that character. Is it "metagame?" I guess it might be, but who cares?

I do.

The SAs, as written, are designed to focus the player on ensuring that their character behaves according to the goals they defined for the character. If they're good and behave as expected then they're given points. If they're bad and don't follow up on the situations we as referees have designed with their character's SAs in mind then they can be punished by taking points away.

This is very neat and simple.

On the other hand, it looks like a complicated concept such as temptation should be handled situationally with the player simply deciding what the character will do, rather than situationally with a mechanism determining whether the character is able to do what the player intends for them.

Is there any other facet of the gaming environment that is handled this way?

Ian.Plumb wrote: ...was it really a good idea to tie character advancement so closely to SA development and use?

Jake Norwood wrote: It was the best idea in the lot! The mistake may have been calling the SAs "attributes" at all, instead of "motivations" or "values," but I confess that what I was doing at the time was "new" even for me. See, in the end, the game ends up being "about" whatever the advancement system is "about."

The game is about improving the values in the character's SAs?

Cheers,

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: OK, please correct me I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here:

If this is the case, what would you use as the base number of dice for the player?

Valamir wrote: You could do it that way as an opposed roll if you wished. I'd probably only do that if the tempation was being actively encouraged by a another person "sure...take a drink, you can handle it, no one will know" in which case it would be a pretty straight forward Persuasion Test.

Even then there's no need for a willpower test. Sure, everybody here knows the story and will give the ring back to Frodo. But in your sessions, nobody need know all the details. Remember our player named 'Boromir' knows his history: the ring was taken by his ancester from the dark lord, and is the rightful property of men. It is generally known that the ring is a weapon of great power too.

Now, when Boromir picks up the ring, tell the player to put +3 next to every stat and weapon skill. When he gives the ring back, tell him to erase the +3.

The point is make the conflict tangible and real, and let the player decide.

-Jeff

Jaif,

Ordinarily I would completely agree with you, temptation should be a player based thing and not decided on WP rolls - that's not really fair to the player as it takes control of the character out of their hand. Besides, give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves with it anyway :-)

However, in this specific example (ala The One Ring), I would ALSO include a WP component. It wasn't only a desire for power/status/whatever that drew people to the ring, it was a very real presence fuelling their desires and making it harder for them to resist them, thus I would involve a WP test of some sort to overcome that.

Brian.

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: The SAs, as written, are designed to focus the player on ensuring that their character behaves according to the goals they defined for the character. If they're good and behave as expected then they're given points. If they're bad and don't follow up on the situations we as referees have designed with their character's SAs in mind then they can be punished by taking points away.

Jake Norwood wrote: Aha! SAs don't ensure anything! That would remove free will, and that's what SAs--and TROS--are about. What do I do with my free will? Sure, the player should act according to their SAs, and if they don't, then it's worth asking them why they chose not to go that way (and even change the focus if need be), but the mechanics don't force action, or even coerce. They tempt the player with a reward for acting a certain way.

Ian.Plumb wrote: On the other hand, it looks like a complicated concept such as temptation should be handled situationally with the player simply deciding what the character will do, rather than situationally with a mechanism determining whether the character is able to do what the player intends for them.

Jake Norwood wrote: This is absolutely correct. What you're leaving out is the reward mechanism. SAs are rewards for acting a certain way, and, as written, occassionally punishments.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Is there any other facet of the gaming environment that is handled this way?

Jake Norwood wrote: A great deal, if I understand you correctly. Most of what characters do in most games is based on the decisions of the players, not on the stats of the characters. Anytime anything is done without a die roll this is the case. Some games use dice or stats to moderate the player's choices for their characters, but TROS does it by handing out doggie-treats (SAs) when characters act one way, and not another.

However, in this specific example (ala The One Ring), I would ALSO include a WP component. It wasn't only a desire for power/status/whatever that drew people to the ring, it was a very real presence fuelling their desires and making it harder for them to resist them, thus I would involve a WP test of some sort to overcome that.

Sorry so late. Just realized you asked me a question.

Ian.Plumb wrote: I absolutely agree.

Do you define SAs for NPCs? Do you develop your long-term NPCs using the same mechanisms as the PCs?

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: Do you define SAs for NPCs? Do you develop your long-term NPCs using the same mechanisms as the PCs?

bcook1971 wrote: I've yet to run a TROS campaign. But I wonder what my Seneschal would say . . . I'll ask him.

BTW, my general approach to running antagonists and proponents is to portray some kind of drive, but it's all internalized, i.e. not formally expressed as with SA's.

If SA's were called Story Advantage points it would eliminate most of the misiterpretations.

Your SA's indicate what areas of Story you as a Player are most interested in pursuing in play. The reduction in SA that you get for acting contrary to your SA, is simple a sign from the Seneschal that you must not be considerin it as important a story area anymore... or a social contract nudge.

Dropping them to 0 in order to advance your character...is just another way to create an advantage for the character.

A zero SA still indicates that this story area is important to you as a player to pursue, but until you do so, you gain nothing by pursuing it. The more you pursue the SA the more important you indicate it to be story-wise...thus raising an SA to 5 is a sign of one that is both important and actively used.

Its a bit of a social contract between the player and GM.

Player: I find these areas interesting and want to see it become part of the game.
GM: I can design ideas that will interest the players, if they tie into their SAs, with a mechanic to both monitor and reward whether this is true.

Thats my way of thinking about them, anyway...

Also, if a player is having his character get involved in areas where he doesn't indicate a Story Advantage, then he is taking on as much risk as any normal human...

He should take on those challenges that he cares about... where SA's are involved. It is there that the bonus dice will let him be heroic.

Hi Ian.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Oh Jake there's no need to be so literal. The SAs make the player predictable. They don't ensure that they are predictable, but they stack the odds in the referee's favour. We might choose to put a different spin on this, but when players are encouraged to question why their character would even participate in activity that isn't related to their character's SAs -- well, SAs can be see as a neat way of ensuring a high degree of compliance with the plot line. This isn't a bad thing. It is a good thing.

Ah, such is the weakness of this brand of communication. I understand better now, yes, and I concur.

I don't see temptation being linked with SAs necessarily. Maybe it is in some campaigns -- perhaps the only temptation with relevance to the character is one that entices them from the headlong pursuit of their SAs.

Half agree, half disagree. Temptation in literature is always about what's really important to someone...or about their weaknesses. Weaknesses are handled through Flaws and WP rolls, so that may be what you're looking for, as some have suggested.

As I see it, TRoS doesn't have spiritual attributes in the sense that it has physical attributes and mental attributes. It has something that it calls Spiritual Attributes but, from a mechanics perspective, they bear no resemblance to the other attributes. I would like to see the game have both spiritual attributes and Spiritual Attributes.

This is spot on--SA's aren't like PAs or MAs, and as I said before, they're probably misnamed (btw, I like Bob's approach, above). The best model I've seen for what you're talking about is probably Pendragon (which was, admittedly, a huge influence on TROS). I'm not sure that I would like to see TROS with the kinds of SAs that you're describing, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see a TROS spinoff/tie-in that works that way (wink-wink).

Let me rephrase: Is there any other form of conflict or contest within the gaming environment where the player has the option of simply deciding whether their character wins or loses?

I think where we're hitting a wall here is the idea that a player can "win or lose" by making a decision. Temptation is, IMO, entirely an issue of (a) decision and (b) discipline of character ( = WP). I don't see a need for any decision to be handled by mechanics. Temptation, for me, is just like "do I go north or do I go south? North lies fortune, south lies my friends..." There is no mechanic that I would want interfering here in standard TROS play. Thus I don't really see how temptation is a non-choice based conflict, or one that shouldn't be handled by the player making a decision, unless the game is "about" something other that what TROS as written is about. In your Lyonesse setting (where I presume many of these issues are coming from) the focus of play may be very different from what vanilla TROS is set up for--which is fine--but I would like to know when a character should lose the ability to make the decision 100% on their own, and why? (Note- I'm not contesting the idea, but actually asking when and why in-play this is desireable?)

Jake

Hi,

Bob McNamee wrote: If SA's were called Story Advantage points it would eliminate most of the misiterpretations.

Your SA's indicate what areas of Story you as a Player are most interested in pursuing in play. The reduction in SA that you get for acting contrary to your SA, is simple a sign from the Seneschal that you must not be considerin it as important a story area anymore... or a social contract nudge.

Hi,

Jake Norwood wrote: Ah, such is the weakness of this brand of communication. I understand better now, yes, and I concur.

Ian.Plumb wrote: I don't see temptation being linked with SAs necessarily. Maybe it is in some campaigns -- perhaps the only temptation with relevance to the character is one that entices them from the headlong pursuit of their SAs.

Jake Norwood wrote: Half agree, half disagree. Temptation in literature is always about what's really important to someone...or about their weaknesses. Weaknesses are handled through Flaws and WP rolls, so that may be what you're looking for, as some have suggested.

Ian.Plumb wrote: As I see it, TRoS doesn't have spiritual attributes in the sense that it has physical attributes and mental attributes. It has something that it calls Spiritual Attributes but, from a mechanics perspective, they bear no resemblance to the other attributes. I would like to see the game have both spiritual attributes and Spiritual Attributes.

Jake Norwood wrote: This is spot on--SA's aren't like PAs or MAs, and as I said before, they're probably misnamed (btw, I like Bob's approach, above). The best model I've seen for what you're talking about is probably Pendragon (which was, admittedly, a huge influence on TROS). I'm not sure that I would like to see TROS with the kinds of SAs that you're describing, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see a TROS spinoff/tie-in that works that way (wink-wink).

Ian.Plumb wrote: Let me rephrase: Is there any other form of conflict or contest within the gaming environment where the player has the option of simply deciding whether their character wins or loses?

Jake Norwood wrote: (Snip) Thus I don't really see how temptation is a non-choice based conflict, or one that shouldn't be handled by the player making a decision, unless the game is "about" something other that what TROS as written is about. In your Lyonesse setting (where I presume many of these issues are coming from) the focus of play may be very different from what vanilla TROS is set up for--which is fine--but I would like to know when a character should lose the ability to make the decision 100% on their own, and why? (Note- I'm not contesting the idea, but actually asking when and why in-play this is desireable?)

There is the further question of what your character finds tempting, though.

What if, for example, drink holds no appeal at all for your character? Should a WP roll be required in that case?

Isn't that a kind of Advantage, when you come right down to it? How would it be reflected in the rules?

Hi,

Bob Richter wrote: There is the further question of what your character finds tempting, though.

What if, for example, drink holds no appeal at all for your character? Should a WP roll be required in that case?

Isn't that a kind of Advantage, when you come right down to it? How would it be reflected in the rules?

Ian.Plumb wrote: How do you generate pro-rated PCs in TRoS? Let's say the player isn't in a position to use the Insight rules but they don't want to play a raw recuit. Would you allocate Insight Points according to a formula of, for example, 2d10 per year over the age of 18 and apply the result to Table 3.5?

Would you use a similar system for the NPCs?

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: How do you generate pro-rated PCs in TRoS? Let's say the player isn't in a position to use the Insight rules but they don't want to play a raw recuit. Would you allocate Insight Points according to a formula of, for example, 2d10 per year over the age of 18 and apply the result to Table 3.5?

Would you use a similar system for the NPCs?

bcook1971 wrote: I figured out that Insight bit last night during play. My Seneschal has been saying things like, "Ok, Billy, you get +1 for pursuing your destiny," after we finish some sequence. Turns out you can spend those gains for all manner of advancement.

So it's getting back to D&D-style leveling up. If your goal as Seneschal is to match challenge to ability, I assume you'll have to eyeball your group's character sheets to create meatier nasties. I'd do it that way rather than holding to some in house rigor.