We (our small inbetween games group) are giving Riddle of Steel a short workout over the next couple of months.

Now I love the system, and originality in the rules, but the thing that scares me the most from a player's perspective is the quick-character death syndrome, and as a Senechal, the speed at which a story can de-rail with such speedy deaths.

So Im really canvasing for opinions and your experience in playing and running this unique game.

Not direct experience, but a nearly yearlong campaign by some people I know definately lead to some character turnover. They considered it successful. I'm not sure if any starting character survived the whole way, and remember they were all total noobs to the game when they started, but I know one character just about >< made it. He died in the final battles to a relatively lesser foil. He and his opponent actually died together, with the PC doing some sort of last gasp thing (I forget the details exactly, I don't know the rules well enough to explain) that involved eye gouging approximately back-of-the-skull deep. :stick:

They seemed to have had a lot of fun, though I will qualify that by saying most of them are sword nuts (ARMA) with 3 of them having real-deal steel and the other two are wives who do spar and such, but only use wooden wasters and/or aluminum blunts.

I know the game has mechanics to handle character turnover (passing on experience only to a new character) but deaths of this quality and quantity havent been seen since the Call of Cthulhu - Horror on the Orient Express campaign mixed in with Rolemaster critical tables.

Quote from: Lawbagdeaths of this quality and quantity havent been seen since the Call of Cthulhu - Horror on the Orient Express campaign mixed in with Rolemaster critical tables.

Shit.  Now I must own this game.

I wanted to like this game, but the combat system was just to complicated for my group to enjoy it. We don't mind deadly games, but combat just bogs down.

Ill agree combat is radically new that it is easier to say, "Nah, gimme my D20", but it makes players SIT UP AND PAY ATTENTION, rather than waiting for their initiative number to come up.

The rules say, and there is even help on the website, to get players running large combats.

http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/

Quote from: LawbagI know the game has mechanics to handle character turnover (passing on experience only to a new character) but deaths of this quality and quantity havent been seen since the Call of Cthulhu - Horror on the Orient Express campaign mixed in with Rolemaster critical tables.

If you keep getting in one-on-one fights you eventually die. Sooner rather than later. Such is the nature of crossing blades. That's why getting underlings to fight for you is so important. It is good to be the General.

Quote from: blakkieIf you keep getting in one-on-one fights you eventually die. Sooner rather than later. Such is the nature of crossing blades. That's why getting underlings to fight for you is so important. It is good to be the General.

That's a problem I have with the system. You've got some pretty cool combat mechanics  even though they're using the craptastic idea of dice pools with shifting target numbers.
And then you're not supposed to use it. Funk dat!

Quote from: SosthenesAnd then you're not supposed to use it. Funk dat!

Use it but, you know, don't go looking to get into combat. Let the combat come to you.

Quote from: blakkieUse it but, you know, don't go looking to get into combat. Let the combat come to you.

Most of the time, those two choices are one and the same, Yakoff.

I started the first game with the PC's watching judicial duels at the city's Dueling Bridge.  If a duelist wished to give up, they jumped off of the bridge into the water and city surgeons awaited at the Bridge of Shame downstream.

I made up a few duelists, enough so that everyone could play one and each player got to play through a duel with an NPC, seeing how the combat worked, how Spiritual Attributes effected combat (quite a bit) and take chances without their PC's at risk.

Turns out the players didn't like the turnout in one of the duels, challenged the winners to a duel, pissed off some nobles and the entire game was about their feud with those families.

Hope that helps.

It has deadly cmbat but its got nifty rules for dealing with PC death.  Characters should really only be getting into combats when their SA's are firing, otherwise things get deadly in a big ole hurry.

Quote from: SosthenesMost of the time, those two choices are one and the same, Yakoff.

Not really.  Someone stands in front of me with sword in hand. I can draw steel and throw myself into the fray, or I usually can take other options. Like pay him off, send an underling at time, gangup on him with an underlying, attack him indirectly, attack at a distance with an unfair weapon advantage (AKA Pulling An Indiana Jones), perhaps flee, and the list goes on.

Quote from: blakkieNot really.  Someone stands in front of me with sword in hand. I can draw steel and throw myself into the fray, or I usually can take other options. Like pay him off, send an underling at time, gangup on him with an underlying, attack him indirectly, attack at a distance with an unfair weapon advantage (AKA Pulling An Indiana Jones), perhaps flee, and the list goes on.

Why would I need detailed combat rules if all they do is make me try to avoid combat? The _player_ wants to have some combat, if the GM now obliterates him and points out "Well, in real life, combat is deadly, at least that's what the HACA tells me!", something is going wrong. Playing characters like I'd behave in real life isn't good gaming, most of the time.

In a setting for a game where TROS would be a good system, honor duels would probably be pretty common. So just by creating a character with good sword skills, you're asking for trouble. Why go that way if now all you do is try to avoid it or pull cheap shots?

Quote from: SosthenesWhy would I need detailed combat rules if all they do is make me try to avoid combat? The _player_ wants to have some combat, if the GM now obliterates him and points out "Well, in real life, combat is deadly, at least that's what the HACA tells me!", something is going wrong. Playing characters like I'd behave in real life isn't good gaming, most of the time.

In a setting for a game where TROS would be a good system, honor duels would probably be pretty common. So just by creating a character with good sword skills, you're asking for trouble. Why go that way if now all you do is try to avoid it or pull cheap shots?

Check out Paka's post for some info on that, when to avoid and how to make it far less likely to die from a duel.  Because think about it, if you keep dueling to the death you've got 3 possible outcomes and at least one person dies or is seriously maimed in each of them. You keep flipping the coin and.....  I guess the best way to put it is that combat is more of the highlight event rather than just the regular grind. The tension is in that.

Or you go through lots of characters.

But yes, Riddle of Steel's single person combat is far more a swordfighting simulation than any other RPG out there. If that doesn't get you off (but you want a very strong emphasis on individual combat) then it likely isn't the game for you. *shrug*

Quote from: blakkieBut yes, Riddle of Steel's single person combat is far more a swordfighting simulation than any other RPG out there. If that doesn't get you off then it likely isn't the game for you. *shrug*

I'm not actually talking about the system itself. It isn't _that_ deadly, at least compared to other "realistic" ones, especially when you consider the option that you don't have to fight 'til you die. And that you wear more armor than the  setting often seems to advocate...

What I am talking about is that whole "avoid combat" mindset. The rest of TROS isn't worth it, really. Either you play a "swordslinger" (oh my), or you'd probably be better off playing something different.