In my experience in rules sets with the expectation that players will police themselves, some number won't. Designing rules for self-policing players just encourages the munchkins.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927786Not a big fan of the Riddle of Steel Spiritual Attributes (SAs), namely due to implementation.  You don't really get experience directly, you raise SAs and then convert those points to XPs.  So if you don't play to your SAs, you don't advance. You can even get rid of them for new Passions.

So, this is what can happen...
First Encounter - Our hero is passing by an alley and sees several ruffians accosting a young maiden.  One of his SAs, let's say Drive: Protect the Innocent comes into play.  Normally getting outnumbered in TRoS is even a worse idea than in RQ6.  However, with the bonus from SAs, he defeats the ruffians.  His Drive is high enough that he turns it in for exp and it drops to zero, or he even decides to change it to something else.

Second Encounter - Our same hero is passing by the same alley and sees the same several ruffians accosting a different young maiden.  Because he decided to increase some skills, he apparently doesn't care about defending the innocent anymore, so can't rely on his SA.  He goes in anyway, is outnumbered, and gets cut down like a dog, luckily dying before he can see what the ruffians do with the maiden. (probably share the contents of the Hero's purse with her as she's the bait ).

Not really my thing.

I call shenanigans on that, with TRoS damage tables, these wouldn't be the same ruffians:D!

Quote from: Arminius;927820The combat system also seemed strange--IIRC the rules implied that if you chose a given maneuver in one round, you should be constrained in which maneuvers you could use in the next. And the system really would only work if that were the case (because some maneuvers were so clearly superior). But I couldn't find anything that spelled out what was allowed, so it came across as another "police yourself" system. Anyway, another digression.

The question is, where did you get that impression from? Because having run and played TRoS, I don't remember the rules implying any such thing, and the manoeuvres are things you can do every round;)!

It's been a long time since I looked at the rules. I remember an example of combat, though, that said something roughly like "since he just made a slash from right to left, he now can only guard in the lower left quadrant". This made sense but wasn't enforced by the rules afaict. It was frustrating as well because a system like that would be very interesting (and has been implemented in Swashbuckler (by Jim Dietz) and--I think--Spellbound Kingdoms.) Without that constraint, the choice of maneuver isn't as interesting. I think you choose maneuvers in secret, right? Then you basically have an NxN strategy matrix ("normal form" in Game Theory) and when I looked at the options in one example, most or all of them were dominated. So in that example at least it was always obvious which maneuver each combatant would choose.

Quote from: Arminius;927885It's been a long time since I looked at the rules. I remember an example of combat, though, that said something roughly like "since he just made a slash from right to left, he now can only guard in the lower left quadrant".

Sorry, don't remember that example:). I guess it would be down to the GM to award a dice penalty to the defence.

QuoteThis made sense but wasn't enforced by the rules afaict.

It makes sense, but I don't see how to make a game based around it. I mean, what you can or can't defend from the lower left quadrant depends on your weapon, details of your stance, the way you move (and I don't mean speed, equal speed with different ways of moving can lead to different results), the line your weapon is in, distance and a host of other factors...

QuoteIt was frustrating as well because a system like that would be very interesting (and has been implemented in Swashbuckler (by Jim Dietz) and--I think--Spellbound Kingdoms.)

I own, but don't remember Swaschbuckling. But Spellbound Kingdoms doesn't have such things, it just has manoeuvres schemes. You can go from the one you have executed to one of the nearest ones.

QuoteWithout that constraint, the choice of maneuver isn't as interesting. I think you choose maneuvers in secret, right? Then you basically have an NxN strategy matrix ("normal form" in Game Theory) and when I looked at the options in one example, most or all of them were dominated. So in that example at least it was always obvious which maneuver each combatant would choose.

Yes, there are right and wrong manoeuvres to choose. But the "wrong" ones are "right" in other situations, so it's not "obvious" in the sense of "repeat the same every round".

Spellbound Kingdoms may not have the detail, but the graphs of move options should have the effect of complicating your choice based not only on what looks good to do now, but how it sets you up for the future. Same deal with Swashbuckler (note, 2e offers more weapons). Add this to the simultaneous selection of maneuvers, at least in Swashbuckler, and you have quite an interesting dueling system in principle. In TRoS my impression was that selecting a maneuver is rather trivial, even if it may differ from round to round, and I didn't get the impression that it rewarded planning your next move or that it fostered a contest of strategy and counter-strategy.

Quote from: Arminius;928067Spellbound Kingdoms may not have the detail, but the graphs of move options should have the effect of complicating your choice based not only on what looks good to do now, but how it sets you up for the future. Same deal with Swashbuckler (note, 2e offers more weapons). Add this to the simultaneous selection of maneuvers, at least in Swashbuckler, and you have quite an interesting dueling system in principle. In TRoS my impression was that selecting a maneuver is rather trivial, even if it may differ from round to round, and I didn't get the impression that it rewarded planning your next move or that it fostered a contest of strategy and counter-strategy.

I should dig out my copy of Swaschbuckler, not that I think of it:).
For Spellbound Kingdoms, my impression was that this varied by style, with some styles allowing a simple alternating of two options, while others were harder to set up. I really wonder whether I'd ever get to play that one, though, mostly because my group doesn't dig the setting, for various reasons, although we all agree it's obviously lovingly crafted!

But I assure you, you're very wrong about TRoS lacking planning. Especially when you're fighting at a material disadvantage, like a strong enemy with decent armour, not planning how to set up your next move would be nothing short of suicidal;). At the same time, the right planning can win even otherwise hopeless battles.

Perhaps you could give your best detailed example in another thread. I can see how a game might reward some planning without necessarily encouraging the sort of chess-like duel of stratagems that I felt was promised in TRoS--or at any rate the sort I'd hope to see in a dueling combat system.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;927081This is something I noticed that all my children automatically do. I refer to it as "escapist" play. I know that we as old timers try to emphasis that a player's character should have his or her own personality and goals, but I find this to be a hindrance to a starting player. It's one of the reason I dislike 5e as it puts too much emphasis on these types of ideas. As I see it, a player only has a few months or years where they can truly lose themselves in the game. Forcing them to cut that time short by introducing all sorts of character-based personality mechanics deprives them of that experience.

The difference between:

"You are in a dungeon, what do you do?" and
"Conan is in a dungeon, what would he do?"

I have a relatively limited experience running games where kids are involved, only a few times with teenagers and only once with an actual pre-adolescent, but from that experience I found that randomly-generated backgrounds brings out the roleplaying pretty well.

Reading Spellbound Kingdoms reminded me of this thread:).
Mood and Inspirations are an in-setting thing.
They have major, pronounced effects that are known to people in the setting. In fact, trying to avoid or control such effects is what has contributed quite a bit to shaping the setting as it is.
And since the required measures are drastic to say the least, the revolt against them is the other major driving force in the setting;).

Quote from: Arminius;928161Perhaps you could give your best detailed example in another thread. I can see how a game might reward some planning without necessarily encouraging the sort of chess-like duel of stratagems that I felt was promised in TRoS--or at any rate the sort I'd hope to see in a dueling combat system.

We'll see if and when such a thread appears. Problem is, I've written at length about it on TBP, but I can't find it.