Post originally by Stephen at 2004-07-23 09:54:00
Converted from Phorums BB System
I think you make a couple of interesting points, but I’m not sure you’re properly hitting the difference between subjective preferences and objective flaws. I thought I would put a different perspective on some of the key points you mention:
“The main issue I had with the book here was that it didn’t adequately discuss how to use Spiritual Attributes in the game. Such a huge dynamic should deserve its own chapter, or at least a page discussing how to use this creative process, but the author apparently believed that the SAs were as easy as pie to get. Well, I’m glad that I’m not the only one that didn’t get it at first. My entire group didn’t get it, and I see that others as well had issues. Supposedly, many are attracted to the game because of its combat, but stay playing because of the SAs. If this is the case, I suggest a full chapter on the topic is deserved.”
You might be surprised to find that many fans of this game, including myself, agree with you. Part of the reason for this is that a lot of the scope, potential, and meaning of the SAs only became clear with
years of playtesting – the author himself didn’t realize the complexity and potential of the mechanic. You can find a lot of useful discussion about SAs on the Riddle of Steel forum at the Forge,
www.indie-rpgs.com.
“The advantages are pretty much a waste of space, and should either be redone and quadrupled in size or deleted completely. … For a game so heavily based off of story telling games, the author sure didn’t learn enough from their successes.”
Could you be perhaps more specific? What was missing that you thought should be there, or what was “a waste” about what was provided? If there’s not enough variety for your tastes, that’s one thing, but that doesn’t in itself mean that what is provided is completely useless. What made the gifts/flaws valueless for you, and what successes do you think TROS should have learned from and repeated?
“It was quickly apparent that the more you were familiar with the system, the better you would be at it, which is cool, but then a player brought up a good point. Why does my combat skills as a player matter to my character in combat? The answer is - it shouldn’t. This is a role-playing game, after all.”
This is a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don’t issue which can apply to just about any part of any game: If player skill is allowed to augment character ability, it penalizes those players who don’t have that skill; but if player skill is not allowed to affect character performance, it penalizes those players who
do have the skill. Either way, somebody feels hosed.
For myself, I ask: Why shouldn’t your ability to play the game
as a game contribute to your ability to win conflicts within it? If skill at the game itself brings no in-game benefit, there’s no incentive to improve your understanding of the system beyond the barest minimum, after all; and in just about any game, better knowledge of the rules and their permutations translates to an advantage for your character.
You don’t have to be good at real-life combat to be good at TROS combat; all you have to do is practice playing the game.
“But from the point of game creating, why bother giving a type of character that much power, only to then try to create shackles to refrain them from using it? The combat system had a similar feel. You’re able to perform some cool maneuvers and all, but it’s so deadly, you really pick your fights carefully. To me, this kind of thinking is worthless, and I’ll never get it. I would rather give my players weaker powers and let them have fun with them as opposed to the latter of giving them godlike abilities or a super deadly combat system, and them punishing them if they use it.”
I actually sympathize with this reaction, as I had much the same opinion on TROS sorcery after reading it – both combat and sorcery allow you to exert tremendous influence on the imaginary world around you (as you note yourself, skill at
playing the combat system can often overcome superior weaponry and stats), but at a price which is potentially so steep (wounds and maiming for combat, loss of youth for sorcery) that players often wind up
avoiding using the two most powerful tools they have to affect the game.
However, what I missed, and what I would suggest you’re missing here too, is that
that is entirely the point. Thematically, the “Riddle of Steel” that’s referenced multiple times throughout the book is, “What are you willing to risk dying for?” Combat and sorcery
should be risky,
should be dangerous – if the stake is not worth the gamble, the gamble itself won’t be interesting. And what constitutes too high or risky a bet will be different for each player.
By making combat and sorcery so potentially costly that they are only used when absolutely necessary, that also means that
every single fight or spell MEANS something – neither combat nor sorcery are
ever casual, fun, or trivial. If that’s not to your tastes, that’s one thing; to suggest it’s an objective flaw in the game is another.
“The big selling point for this game I’ve heard is that the player can add dice whenever his SAs come into play, making combat meaningful, etc. etc. Well, excuse me, but is Spider-man only heroic when his Aunt May is captured by a villain? No way! Is Aragorn only heroic when he’s defending a hobbit? Heck no! Other game systems assume that because you are a hero, you are a hero ALL the time. TROS assumes you’re not a hero, except when your sister is in trouble, or when your arch nemesis arrives, or etc.”
Isn’t it equally possible that the thinking is, “You’re a hero all the time, but you’re
especially a hero when the thing that really matters to you is on the line?” Spider-Man’s heroic all the time, but he’s
really heroic when he’s protecting Aunt May or M.J.; Inigo Montoya is a brilliant swordsman all the time, but he’s
really kickass when he’s facing the Six-Fingered Man. If you know what you’re doing, pick your battles and play smart, you can be effective without needing SA dice – the SA dice are there for when you really need them to make up the difference.
“GMs are required to design adventures using the SAs from their players. ...But [w]hat it’s saying is that you obviously can’t role-play, so we’re going to force you to role-play, and force the GM to create his world around your character, because he can’t create any decent meaningful stories on his own.”
Don’t most good GMs design the campaign plotline around their characters anyway? If so, why complain that there’s a handy mechanic in place to help structure that process?
“As a player, I certainly don’t need the shackles of this system (or any system for that matter) to remind me of what’s important to my character. If I design my character right, I’ve already thought of that. While some may claim the difference is great, I don’t believe SAs are any more important in gaming than taking disads or an alignment elsewhere, and in fact, are nearly insulting by insinuating that I obviously need help role-playing, so here are some meaningless rules to keep you in line. It smacks of negative reinforcement, and it’s just plain ugly.”
The game is certainly designed to require character-driven choices and roleplaying, because it’s only by gaining points in your character’s SAs that you can get better and progress. But that doesn’t mean the writer is assuming that you won’t roleplay unless it’s required – he’s simply providing a reward mechanism for people who want to make that the key point of their gaming experience. Is that any different from GURPS’ “roleplaying bonus” in awarding character points, or character point penalty if you don’t roleplay your Quirks? Or D&D’s various alignment mechanics, or Pendragon’s in-game benefits for high Traits? Is Call of Cthulhu’s sanity mechanic “insulting” because it can be seen to suggest that players can’t be trusted to roleplay their own descent into madness?
I think your review does touch on some of the key issues that make TROS a very different game from many, but I think you’re mistaking those differences for objective weaknesses because they don’t appeal to your particular style of play and desired game qualities – and I would suggest that you’re perhaps reading too much into the game’s design choices. Must people who prefer checkers feel “insulted” when somebody else says they think chess is a better game?
Linear Mode
