The Forge Archives

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10048.phtml

He has some points, and he really made me think about the GM/planning campaigns bit. I don't agree that you have to wing it so much for a TROS story, only be prepared for sudden changes.

I think that its not as much a decision of winging it or not as much as 1) grounding the adventure in the SAs, and 2) giving the players real choices (no 'railroading').  Because of this, making a published adventure module for TROS (in the old D&D sense) is practically impossible.

As for the review, the forum under it is a must-read.  Ralph does a good job of explaining the problems in the review.  Its a shame the forum devolved into such a flame-fest (I'm not blaming Ralph, BTW).

I will now be quiet again for another 4 months :)

I think the reviewer is definitely coming at the game from the wrong angle for TROS entirely. Yup, it has flaws and so does the book, but I think a few things should be noted:

1) A realistic combat system is not necessarily what you need for a combat heavy game.
2) He obviously has no experience of actually fighting, to judge by his comments on a "true sword fight".
3) A GM need not run the game that heavily by letting the SAs do the work instead (and of course, changing your SAs willy nilly does penalise you heavily)

But at least there is yet another review out there :)

James

I love this. First he raves about it being realistic, then raving that it is too realistic and not realistic enough?! Having a swordfight up stairs isn't possible? I don't even know how to argue this.... this guy does not know what he wants to say IMO.

Quote from: Salamanderthis guy does not know what he wants to say IMO.

I think that's the point.

Beyond that, though, I really don't think there is much in the review worth discussing.  Tywin mentions how to plan a campaign for TROS was something this reviewed made him think about more, and I think that is worth talking about.  A few issues are raised in the forum of the review that I think are important to debate for reviews on rpg.net, but not really in here.  There's no need to all agree the review missed some important things.  So, is there anything else that the review (accidentally?) makes us think about, such as Tywin's comment?  For me, the answer is no, but that's just me.

*Mutter* here I am posting again, dammit...

My Nick, you are rather verbose this month... :)

I feel that it does bring up the issue (once again) of the overall ignorance of those who roleplay sword fights. I am not saying the reviewer is a boor or a slob, just not aware of what happens when two people cross swords. Even I am only basically aware of the concept as I have never been in a real swordfight either. But I have an inkling due to the training I am recieving in Kunst dei Fechten. In regards to the idea of heroic swordfights, I have never heard of such a thing. All the fights I have heard about were dirty, desperate affairs where one or more people died. This leads me to the second concept, how long does this fellow think a real sword fight would last? Most of the rounds for a sparring match for me last a few seconds and five blows between both people, TOPS. A functional engagement with swords and a theatrical engagement with swords are two different creatures. One kills you, the other pays for your beer and bread.

I think he has a point when it comes to being a novice GM/Seneschal. What does an unexperienced GM do when one player, as the reviewer suggests, wants to go north and the other go south?
In my own campaign, players have split up, and I have let them do it, because it fit the story quite well (just like the splitting of the Fellowship in The Lord of the Rings heightens the drama), but not for long periods of time. Besides, players soon enough realize they need to stay together with such a brutal combat system.

On writing adventures for TROS; the one I've written for personal use had pre-generated characters (at least when it comes to the characters' backgrounds/ranks etc.); in this way, the players were forced to start out from a certain point; in this case, a young lordling, a house knight and the son of a smith, all connected to each other (the knight serves the lordling's father, whose castlesmith is the father of the third PC). *then* the players created their SAs. In this way, at least some SAs were compatible (such as the smithson's "Loyalty to the House (of the lordling's character)". Flaws and gifts flesh out the individual parts of the characters.

Quote from: Salamander
I feel that it does bring up the issue (once again) of the overall ignorance of those who roleplay sword fights. I am not saying the reviewer is a boor or a slob, just not aware of what happens when two people cross swords. Even I am only basically aware of the concept as I have never been in a real swordfight either.

I think this is generally the problem with using 'the real world' to ground one's argument about play.  No one is an expert on everything in the real world, nor will all experts agree on how the real world works.  I must confess that I cringe a teensy little bit whenever I here the term 'realistic' applied to any RPG, be it TROS or something else.  The reason is that paradoxically enough, realism means so many things to so many people that it can't help but be vague.  This can happen in a discussion of only 'experts,' only 'lay-people,' or a mix of the two.

When people say realistic in relation to TROS combat, they often mean strategy matters a lot, that it doesn't take many hits to have a life-threatening condition, etc.  I personally prefer using the latter terms in place of calling it realistic because it helps prevents problems like the review we are talking about, which is at least partially an unstated difference in definitions.  

Quote from: Tywin LannisterI think he has a point when it comes to being a novice GM/Seneschal. What does an unexperienced GM do when one player, as the reviewer suggests, wants to go north and the other go south?

This question is a tricky one.  However, the only part the really rests on the shoulders of the game itself IMO is when the game encourages an answer.  He claims that SAs can encourage this separation and other problems.  You point out that it makes a lot of sense to make sure everyone's SAs are compatible.  That doesn't eliminate problems, but it helps.  Beyond that, I think that novice GMs should look for help, talk with their players, and not assume party unity is a value beyond question.  Most of that, however, is beyond what I would expect when I buy an RPG.

Oi. Morons all. Did the reviewer actually read the GM chapter? It sounds like he's trying to run d20 modules with TROS. Someone should point him to Chris Chinn's Ways to Play.

<Edit, because I clikcked "post" too soon.>

The poster "Buzz" does have a point, though. It's something I was a bit annoyed with the TROS book about. Ken Burnside has the same problem with his Attack Vetor game. When you publish a game, potential players need to be able to derive a clear picture of what actual play looks like from the literature alone. If it's necessary for the designer to hand-hold them through the teaching process, it means the text is not sufficiently developed.

But there is one point- would you actually give TROS to a newbie GM and expect him to run it?


Those of us who have had nothing better to do for 10 years or more have seen and done a lot of things in RPGs. We make rules on the fly, we spend ages with the players making characters and fitting them to settings, and we can cope if the party splits itself without any problems. I have even played scenarios using two GMs, with a fixed path in mind- if the PCs are together, one GM gets to play the bad guys (watch the other guy's eyes pop at some of the dialogue) while the other sets the scene. If the party splits (as the scenario intends), then each GM runs one bunch. We liked the one-off adventure so much, that now, if one of the PCsin a regular game pegs early, he can aid the GM if he feels up to it (which is when a minor sideplot can explode in your face!).

But of course, don't expect new players or those lacking that little bit of maturity to do this!

James

TROS sucks because the sky is purple.

TROS is simply more complex than your normal hack and slash game.  Comparing it to D&D type games is just plain silly.

Quote from: PaganiniOi. Morons all. Did the reviewer actually read the GM chapter? It sounds like he's trying to run d20 modules with TROS. Someone should point him to Chris Chinn's Ways to Play.

<Edit, because I clikcked "post" too soon.>

The poster "Buzz" does have a point, though. It's something I was a bit annoyed with the TROS book about. Ken Burnside has the same problem with his Attack Vetor game. When you publish a game, potential players need to be able to derive a clear picture of what actual play looks like from the literature alone. If it's necessary for the designer to hand-hold them through the teaching process, it means the text is not sufficiently developed.

You know Ken Burnside? I used to play a lot of SFB with him. :D

We've been over this before, James, everyone knows Ken. Ralph rooms with him at cons. He was just across the aisle from The Forge booth at GenCon (I bought his SCAM - Society for the Conservation of Angular Momentum tee-shirt). He's tried to get all of us to play at least ten times. :-)


Ken does represent an interesting point here. That is, AV is complex to say the least. But Ken will tell you over and over that they've really streamlined how things work such that anyone can play just reading the rules.

That said, I'm willing to bet that more than half the people who play the game have played with him. And those that haven't are playing with people who've played with him.

Thing is, that this is pretty common in hobby gaming. Yes there are those examples of people who learned to play D&D just reading a manual, but they're relatively rare. IOW, "newbie GM"? Just what is this creature? Should we really care about him? Which is to say that isn't it possible that it isn't important to have a game be immediately accessible to someone who reads the book? Can't games just continue to spread virally as they do now?

Sure, it would be idea for a game like this to be instantly accessible to anyone reading the books. But it's just unlikely for a game of any complexity. D&D certainly isn't a counter-example. For every story that I've heard of the person who learned by reading, I get a corresponding, "And we played it all wrong for the first three months," story.

I think a game that's simpler, like Inspectres, for instance, can be learned from the text, fairly easily. But I think that if TROS had been written in such a way that you didn't have to have some RPG background to figure out how to play easily would have made Jake the best designer ever. As it is, Jake's first shot out of the gate, he did astoundingly well, equaling or exceeding the "industry standards" for presentation.

Moreover, Jake is here to handhold you if need be. The internet makes this possible, and Jake uses it. So, in this day and age, who can decry the product as it's presented? At worst you have to ask Jake to get the straight dope.

Mike "Obvious Fanboy" Holmes

Sigh

QuoteWe've been over this before, James, everyone knows Ken.

My wife tells me I'm an ideal candidate for early senility. Heck, I've literally forgotten the names of family members before. You expect me to remember something from two months ago? :)

I clearly do not remember this... oh, wait, now I do; Ah well. You are right, I remember that conversation well.