Quote from: SosthenesWhat I am talking about is that whole "avoid combat" mindset.

It is more the 'make every deadly one-on-one really count and be pumped up for it when it happens' mindset. With large scale battles and some posturing duels on the side. *shrug*  If you don't like the simulation (putting the 'S' in 'GNS') aspect, and that's definately cool, then you don't get it. Me? I can't see myself getting into it heavily either. Play a bit sure but not a long campaign's worth. I'm more of the attitute that of Realism™ tends to suck (which I see come out of your posts too).

But then I don't have a hobby that involves going out to the driveway to slice 2L milk cartons in half with my $2000 sword. So what do I know? :cool:

Quote from: blakkieIt is more the 'make every deadly one-on-one really count and be pumped up for it when it happens' mindset. With large scale battles and some posturing duels on the side. *shrug*

Why should that be a problem? You can have pretty frequent combat while still enjoying every single one. I'd say that if you don't, you're doing something wrong. I'm not saying "twenty rooms / twenty battles, all in one session". More like a decent action movie. A few minions to whittle down, get beat by the bad guy, recover, beat the bad guy. That's still a lot of combat going on, but a lot happening the mean time, too.

Actually, "get beat -- up your spirit attributes/proficiencies -- strike back" is something where TROS excels. It would make a fun chop-sockey game

Quote from: blakkieIf you don't like the simulation (putting the 'S' in 'GNS') aspect, and that's definately cool, then you don't get it. Me? I can't see myself getting into it heavily either. Play a bit sure but not a long campaign's worth. I'm more of the attitute that of Realism™ tends to suck (which I see come out of your posts too).

Well, for me "realism" often equals "continuity". I don't particularly care about a complete simulation, as long as all the parts fit together nicely and support the style of the current game.

If you ask me, TROS is way better at the "G" part than the "S" part (and I refuse to talk about the "N" stuff). Yes, they do have some terms from actual, historic combat. But with the pool-splitting, the system supports tactic decisions better than a realistic simulation. Just because I substitute "Zornhaw" for "Power Attack" doesn't guarantee True Scientific Realism™.

Quote from: SosthenesTrue Scientific Realism™

One of us!  One of us!

One interesting point I noticed when I reviewed the game recently was that the magic chapter begins with a short story where the fearsome, badass, highly motivated barbarian gets snuffed out casually by the uberwizard, who then get's held to a standstill by the magically competent assassin.

Then there is a two page essay by Ron Edwards (the Author of Sorcerer, as credited) about the power and drive of wizards in the game.

Which, when you think about it, is pretty fucking odd for a game touting the realism of it's combat system.  I might be so bold as to suggest a more fitting name would have been 'The Riddle of Scrolls' or somesuch.  So, highly lethal combat is there to push you to playing a wizard....:rolleyes:


Or I could be reading into it

Conan D20 - Iron Heroes - Riddle of Steel: Wizards might be powerful, the sword guys get the girls. Sometimes even the axe dudes.

Quote from: SpikeWhich, when you think about it, is pretty fucking odd for a game touting the realism of it's combat system.  I might be so bold as to suggest a more fitting name would have been 'The Riddle of Scrolls' or somesuch.  So, highly lethal combat is there to push you to playing a wizard....:rolleyes:


Or I could be reading into it

Sorcery is just as self destructive.  If you use it casually, you're literally throwing your life away, as without SA's kicking in, each display of power's quite likely to be taking weeks, months, years off of your life.

I don't care much for the arma/sword bunny (as opposed to gun bunny) fetish stuff that makes up the combat system, but it has some cool ideas.  It really comes off as a very rough draft or footnotes in the design process of something that someday could have been a truly wonderful game.  Or really two games, satisfying different sorts of players (one for the aforementioned sword bunny types focusing on the head to head, one to one, swordfighting combat aspect, and another  looking for just an interesting, very gritty sword and sorcery system with a cool set of character driven mechanics).

Quote from: SpikeSNIP

Then there is a two page essay by Ron Edwards (the Author of Sorcerer, as credited) about the power and drive of wizards in the game.

Which, when you think about it, is pretty fucking odd for a game touting the realism of it's combat system.  I might be so bold as to suggest a more fitting name would have been 'The Riddle of Scrolls' or somesuch.  So, highly lethal combat is there to push you to playing a wizard....:rolleyes:


Or I could be reading into it

Yeah I noticed that in the "credits" how the guy pays lip service to Ron Edwards, and the "Of Beasts and Men" supplement even has an advert for Universalis.

My problem with TRoS was simply that given you would generally wish to avoid combat as it is pretty deadly the rest of the system was nothing much to write home about.

I mean, it was just kind of ok, nothing great, and if I am going to run a game focussed mostly on non-combat stuff that doesn't really cut it for me.

Combat was too gamey for my tastes, but even without that it felt like a combat system with an rpg bolted on and I already have En Garde for that.

Quote from: ScaleSorcery is just as self destructive.  If you use it casually, you're literally throwing your life away, as without SA's kicking in, each display of power's quite likely to be taking weeks, months, years off of your life.

I don't care much for the arma/sword bunny (as opposed to gun bunny) fetish stuff that makes up the combat system, but it has some cool ideas.  It really comes off as a very rough draft or footnotes in the design process of something that someday could have been a truly wonderful game.  Or really two games, satisfying different sorts of players (one for the aforementioned sword bunny types focusing on the head to head, one to one, swordfighting combat aspect, and another  looking for just an interesting, very gritty sword and sorcery system with a cool set of character driven mechanics).

Bah, I scoff at losing a few weeks or months of my characters life! Bah I say, bah!

Seriously, that would be a real issue in real life for many people, but its a rare gamer who is worried that his character is gonna die of old age.

I'll reiterate a point I made elsewhere about this game. Yeah, you have a metric fuckload of options in combat, possibly the most options outside of Fatal, where assraping someone to death with your fist is covered by the rules. Yes, combat is deadly. Peachy keen, I can show you a dozen highly lethal RPG's, even a few 'grandaddy' games like Runequest and Traveller. Pft.

But the system, man. I don't see anything particularly creative in the system. Oooh. Dice pools. Wow.

In short, its another dice pool game, only they ramped the granularity up to eleven for combat (look, you can shift your left foot three inches to the right for a 1 die bonus! j/k), and took a pass on any sort of initiative system, leaving it to the GM (oops.... I mean seneschal) to fudge his way through mass combats. Because that is... realistic.

Spike, don't make baseless assumptions, or try to mischaracterize it (I notice how you sort of ignored the "years" part).  It's not a matter of a character dying of old age at some distant, never to be touched in the game time, that might be sooner than the distant, never to be touched time time he'd normally have died, it's a matter of the character squandering his entire life before the campaign's even off to a good start.  

That being said, I think Balbinus hits the nail on the head - it's a combat system, and a very narrow one, focusing with tunnel vision on one on one combats with deranged intensity, with RPG elements bolted on, quit similarly to the Burning Wheel, really.

Quote from: ScaleSpike, don't make baseless assumptions, or try to mischaracterize it (I notice how you sort of ignored the "years" part).  It's not a matter of a character dying of old age at some distant, never to be touched in the game time, that might be sooner than the distant, never to be touched time time he'd normally have died, it's a matter of the character squandering his entire life before the campaign's even off to a good start.  

That being said, I think Balbinus hits the nail on the head - it's a combat system, and a very narrow one, focusing with tunnel vision on one on one combats with deranged intensity, with RPG elements bolted on, quit similarly to the Burning Wheel, really.

Baseless?  How is it baseless?  While the game designer and some players might play with real aging as a serious factor in their games, i can assure you that it has never really come up in a vast majority of gamer's gaming, and thus is likely to be equally ignored by players finding Riddle of Steel for the first time.

Disagree? Fine by me. Let me then shoot another hole in your theory that the aging effect matters.

Fey don't fucking age. They don't grow old, and they don't fucking die. And this is a primary fucking race.  And they are ALL sorcerers.  

So, the major reason NOT to toss spells around casually is easily circumvented by the simple expident of playing the 'coolest' race. Coolest because you have to spend your best priority on them... and can STILL cast magic.


Riddle of Steel is Shadowrun with swords.  I like shadowrun. Riddle of Steel I am more ambivilent about.

Quote from: SpikeRiddle of Steel is Shadowrun with swords.

:rolleyes: And Paranoia is Rolemaster with computers!

Quote from: Scale:rolleyes: And Paranoia is Rolemaster with computers!

Paranoia had percentile based task resolution? Massive critical hits charts? :confused:

Now, I haven't oppened my 2nd ed paranoia book in a decade, but I don't recall anything like Rolemaster in it. I think I would have, I rather liked Rolemaster in those heady days.

On the other hand... shadowrun, up until the new edition, and TROS both used dice pools, priority based character generation and a fair degree of complexity in the combat system of choice.  Previous editions of Shadowrun had variable target numbers, just as TROS does.  Both feature mechanics for boosting rolls that also are used for xp (karma and Spirit attributes respectively).  

Do you want an exhaustive list of the similarities?  How's about this: Combat is excessively lethal unless you stack up armor?  For a more trivial similarity: both are hardback books with roughly the same pagecount, and roughly the same amount of space dedicated to detailing a fairly generic setting? Too trivial? How about: both have pages and pages dedicated to weaponry, with a high degree of granularity between otherwise similar weapons.  There is no generic 'assault rifle' in shadowrun, anymore than there is a generic 'sword' in TROS.  

I can go on if you like. Hell, i can take thanksgiving day to pull out both books and go fucking line by line and tell you just how similar they are.

Paranoia equals rolemaster? Please.:rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeI can go on if you like. Hell, i can take thanksgiving day to pull out both books and go fucking line by line and tell you just how similar they are.

Paranoia equals rolemaster? Please.:rolleyes:

Oh please do.  I mean with such deep and meaningful similarities you've already cited, including the similarity of page count of between an old version of SR and TRoS, I mean you just NAILED the similarity there..  And to further assist you in the project, don't forget things like:

Both games:

* are printed on paper, using english text, not on clay in cuneiform.

* Use dice

* Have task resolution systems that require you to roll said dice, not place a number of the them into your rectum

* Have character sheets

* Characters can die.

* Have Characters

* Have Death

* Have magic

* Have weapons

* Have a game master

* Do not have rules for pissing in the wind

* Are written in books that can be thrown by monkeys

* Have systems of trade where you can give something to "buy" something else

* Are set on worlds with skies

* Are set on worlds with mountains

* Do not taste like chili dogs

* Are written in books that can be thrown AT monkeys

Not only do I concede to you that TRoS and Shadowrun are the same exact game, totally and completely, I hereby supplicate myself to you, forsake all of my spiritual beliefs and proclaim you the one true Grand Poohbah of All there Is, Was, and Ever Could be.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: ScaleOh please do.  I mean with such deep and meaningful similarities you've already cited, including the similarity of page count of between an old version of SR and TRoS, I mean you just NAILED the similarity there..  And to further assist you in the project, don't forget things like:


* Have a game master


Not only do I concede to you that TRoS and Shadowrun are the same exact game, totally and completely, I hereby supplicate myself to you, forsake all of my spiritual beliefs and proclaim you the one true Grand Poohbah of All there Is, Was, and Ever Could be.

:rolleyes:

Incorrect, sir. You obviously have not read the fucking game you are defending so vigorously, or my previous posts on the subject. TROS has a Seneschal.  

Of course, I at least did you the courtesy of identifying the trivial and inconsequential similarities for you in my post.  Since you did not, I must be forced therefore to assume that you consider the areodynamic properties of the game books, specifically in relationship to monkeys, to be equally valid points in regards to an identical character creation system and a nearly identicle task resolution mechanic... i.e. Dice pools with numbers of success being important and floating target numbers. Only the number of sides is different.