Post originally by Cam Banks at 2004-03-22 06:28:05
Converted from Phorums BB System
Leaving aside the fact that a lot of folks actually enjoy this game a great deal, this review was very difficult to read and not very informative. I didn't get any sense of how combat worked, just that it was bad; no sense of how sorcery worked, just that the sorcerers are gods.
Also, spiritual attributes are if not consciously inspired by Pendragon's personality trait & passions system, at the very least preceded by them in terms of the concept. I get a strong feeling that the game mechanics and character generation owe more to FASA's Shadowrun (and Mechwarrior) than White Wolf, as well - the d10 instead of the d6. Just an observation there.
As a suggestion in future, provide some support for your arguments in terms of actual rules summaries and notes, and break the review into smaller paragraphs. It's very hard to process large chunks of text like that.
Post originally by Mark Green at 2004-03-22 06:38:28
Converted from Phorums BB System
This review is basically a carbon copy of the one at http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10048.phtml ..
The same "slaves are better" argument, the same "magic as science" argument, even using exactly the same analogy (the Ferrari) to explain their problems with the combat system.
Post originally by Mark Green at 2004-03-22 06:42:44
Converted from Phorums BB System
I was particularly interested in this thread by the "it's all about the player's skill" argument.
I seriously doubt, by the way, that Jake Norwood could beat anything in the game with a stick. In fact, the one time I started running it, I found it was exactly the reverse, as all my players simply dropped a red dice to attack and then put their entire combat pool into a single huge swing at area V which chopped the opponent in half. Yes, that's a huge risk if they roll bad, but their argument was "If we're fated to roll bad on that number of dice, rolling them in smaller packets won't help any".
But really, what game doesn't have any player skill in it? D&D? Tell that to the player who took a single Fighter level for his Wizard. Or the new player who still uses a sword in V3.5 (it's all spiked chains now, baby).
Post originally by Andy K at 2004-03-22 07:06:21
Converted from Phorums BB System
Yeah, but the fact that not only do they boost your abilities if an action falls under their domain, but that they actually steer and control character growth, is new.
Post originally by Cam Banks at 2004-03-22 07:11:17
Converted from Phorums BB System
Pendragon's personality traits and passions also steer and control character growth, in the sense that they're a very tangible avenue of character development. Personality traits govern such things as religious bonus and chivalry bonus, determine if a knight is able to achieve a certain knightly order, and have a significant role to play in PC magicians.
In addition, constant playing to one's traits and passions builds Glory, and Glory is what it's all about. Thus, it really is all about the traits and passions in Pendragon.
Post originally by Brian at 2004-03-22 07:51:10
Converted from Phorums BB System
This almost had me -- I was reading along, thinking, "OK, here's somebody who doesn't get TROS, who has one model of gaming and is trying to fit this very different game into it -- he probably wouldn't favor HackMaster or Sorcerer either," and then I hit the Vampire line.
Hairs-breath close to being convincing, but holding up the Undead Superhero: the Angsting idea as believable is just too much.
Post originally by illiterati at 2004-03-22 08:04:16
Converted from Phorums BB System
DISCLAIMER: I DON'T like TROS. I read it, decided it wasnt for me.
This is not a review. It's a critique. What's the difference? A review rates something on how well it does what it set out to do. A critique is "I don't like the way you did this...here's how *I* would do it."
The reviewer clearly does not understand this distinction. Statements like "players want to..." should be an automatic warning sign. Here's a little hint: NOT EVERYONE WANTS THE SAME THING OUT OF A RPG. You don't speak for everyone.
Clearly the reviewer doesn't like the approach that TROS takes. That's fine, no one says he has to. But his comments on how to "improve" the magic system in particular show that he has trouble distinguishing his systemic preferences from the system design.
Guess what? TROS is in part a game about having power but having to be very judicious in its application. It's not high fantasy. It's not Swords & Sorcery. If you don't like that, fine, but don't criticize a game as being unplayable because it does't fit your playstyle.
Linear Mode
