Post originally by Jake Norwood at 2004-02-16 15:27:02
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hey Polaris. I'm responding to this quite late, so you may not ever see this replay, but oh well...

You wrote:"That particular post perhaps not, but my point above about the tone in your book when combined with my post set me off. Not all RPGs are the same and being lumped together this way not just by you but by some of the other posters (who will remain nameless) is IMHO a big mistake. "

Point taken.

"Lumping all these systems together annoyed me and I will be the first to admit that the reason it did is because your opinion w/r/t DnD [at least as I read it based on the TROS main book] seemed to be well known."

As has been brought up here, the easily understood perception of DnD etc. bashing in the TROS main book wasn't intentional per se, but was meant to put people in a different mind frame for the game--something that *is* necessary to enjoy TROS. The delivery was horribly flawed, and I take the blame.

"I will skip the description about the TROS combat system. The realism and deadiliness are selling points to me, make no mistake, and I think the Spiritual Attributes are revolutionaly (but why oh why didn't you emphasize and explain them in the book! They deserve a more in depth treatment!)."

I didn't fully understand what SAs could do at the time, to tell the truth. They were this crazy idea that I had that I didn't think anyone else would get, hence the minimalization. Future editions and publications will be sure to remedy that mistake. (are we seeing the reoccruing "first book" error here?)

"The thing that bothers me the most (and it is not unique to TROS by any means) is the metagaming issue. As *I* see it, you have a wonderful combat simulation system for mediaeval/rennaissance combat but it requires a lot of *player* skill to run right. That makes (again as I see it) problematic for a new player to play a combat intensive character. I think that is a very serious flaw."

This is, of course, where we fundamentally disagree. I don't want every game to require skill from me to play, but I felt that there weren't many that did, and I wanted TROS to be one. Thus the need for skill is a feature of the game design, although that doesn't mean it's a feature that everyone will like. Clearly, that's not you.

"That said, IMHO there is no excuse for not editing and playtesting the game beyond your immediate group. I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, but even for a small company there is no excuse for messing up the BIG stuff....and given the state of the hobby tone, layout, rules that are balanced (perhaps not numerically but at least enough to give everyone an equal shot to enjoy themselves),are all what I regard as minimums....and I lament this even more from companies that *do* have the budgets to do better and don't (WOTC anyone?)"

Editing game text is suprisingly hard, as evident in the high-budget companies. We had three proofreaders for TROS, one of them professional, and yet so much got through. Also, playtesting was extensive, and carried on in groups in several states with testers that I have never met or spoken with except for feedback reports. TROS works perfectly if the group enjoys that mode of play. It's something I didn't know how to express back then.

Jake