Quote from: beejazzI actually haven't heard of Shadow of Yesterday...

You might want to take a look here and here, then.

I played a demo at gencon run by the designers.  The combat was definately something, I'll give it that.  It was a few years ago, so take it with however many grains of salt you need, but it seemed like there were way too many tables one had to reference during combat.  Mostly I remember wanting to leave halfway through the combat.

The Riddle of Steel seems like a shank of bacon someone's left out too long. There's still a few delicious bits you can slice off - the combat system, spiritual attributes - but there's also a lot of rank and moldy shit in there - pretty much everything else. I bought a copy right after it came out, and while the combat seems awesome, putting together a character is really fucking boring, and the sample world is about as uninteresting as it could be. After five or so years of ownership, I still haven't figured out how to do anything interesting with the skill system.

Warthur is exactly right that it's a fantasy heartbreaker. Riddle of Steel was one of the first shots in the "D&D iz 4 f4gz" salvo from the Forge.

All things very good to know. I had a feeling it was something worth ripping the combat rules out of for their own sake, and it's good to have that confirmed.

Thanks for the whole comparison thing, Elliot. I'm pretty much decided on sticking with BRP for now. TRoS sounds like just combat and some character advancement, while Harnmaster (from what I hear) just plain sounds a bit much.

And, GG, those links are crazy helpful. I'm designing a bit of a chimera of a system myself (a nice way of saying "ripping off the better parts of a bunch of existing games") and if nothing else it's good to know I'm not alone.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe Riddle of Steel seems like a shank of bacon someone's left out too long. There's still a few delicious bits you can slice off - the combat system, spiritual attributes - but there's also a lot of rank and moldy shit in there - pretty much everything else. I bought a copy right after it came out, and while the combat seems awesome, putting together a character is really fucking boring, and the sample world is about as uninteresting as it could be. After five or so years of ownership, I still haven't figured out how to do anything interesting with the skill system.

Warthur is exactly right that it's a fantasy heartbreaker. Riddle of Steel was one of the first shots in the "D&D iz 4 f4gz" salvo from the Forge.

Great example, Pseudo is pretty much on the money here.

Also, the art is shockingly bad and worse than that doesn't reflect the game, the game talks a lot about how rare the fey are (elves essentially) but almost every piece of art has a pointy eared dude doing stuff.  The art is generic fantasy but badly drawn, the game ironically was aiming at a very humanocentric feel which the art utterly undermines.

Well, I can live with bad art in a small press production, but the layout was really bad. Bad font choice, pixelated art (come on!) and very bad justification. If your skills or software isn't up to justification, then leave it ragged.

Quote from: BalbinusGreat example, Pseudo is pretty much on the money here.

Also, the art is shockingly bad and worse than that doesn't reflect the game, the game talks a lot about how rare the fey are (elves essentially) but almost every piece of art has a pointy eared dude doing stuff.  The art is generic fantasy but badly drawn, the game ironically was aiming at a very humanocentric feel which the art utterly undermines.

Thirded.  Anyone wanna buy a copy?

Imperator I believe had really good results with it, and he has actually played it which I suspect most of us who disliked it never bothered to (I have lots of games, if one really doesn't grab me then it doesn't make the play pile).

It may be worth seeing if he has a different take if he's about.

Quote from: BalbinusImperator I believe had really good results with it, and he has actually played it which I suspect most of us who disliked it never bothered to (I have lots of games, if one really doesn't grab me then it doesn't make the play pile).

I've played it.

Quote from: jdrakehI've played it.

but nothing else to say about it?  that good, huh?

I don't wish to alter the original poster's intent of this thread, but I have to ask... if the game is so lackluster, what's with all the "TROS Rocks" and "you must buy this game" threads at rpg.net. I realize it's an rpg.net darling, but why?

Quote from: pigames.netI don't wish to alter the original poster's intent of this thread, but I have to ask... if the game is so lackluster, what's with all the "TROS Rocks" and "you must buy this game" threads at rpg.net. I realize it's an rpg.net darling, but why?

Heh, I got more or less all the info I needed. Thread drift at this point is officially welcome.

For the record, I don't much visit rpg.net. I saw this mentioned elsewhere.

Quote from: pigames.netI don't wish to alter the original poster's intent of this thread, but I have to ask... if the game is so lackluster, what's with all the "TROS Rocks" and "you must buy this game" threads at rpg.net. I realize it's an rpg.net darling, but why?

Because RPGnet darlingism has more to do with social factors than actual play.  

Even most of the Exalted crowd spends more time mastubating over the latest fatsplat than actualyl playing the game.

Quote from: beeberbut nothing else to say about it?  that good, huh?

I actually said quite a bit about it earlier in this thread. The stand out features are the lethality of combat and the Spiritual Attributes, although ranged combat tends to be more lethal than it would be IRL, I think (I make that comment as a former bow hunter).

Quote from: pigames.netI don't wish to alter the original poster's intent of this thread, but I have to ask... if the game is so lackluster, what's with all the "TROS Rocks" and "you must buy this game" threads at rpg.net. I realize it's an rpg.net darling, but why?

Part of the tightly knit small-press community that I've often criticized is the misplaced sense of loyalty that many people in that community have. Specifically, there are a large number of people involved in that community (both as fans and publishers) that will go out of their way to praise a compatriot's game as The Next Big Thing, even if it's a total piece of garbage.

This misplaced sense of loyalty is responsible for the large amount of hype that has surrounded some ultimately disappointing games (including The Riddle of Steel). As I've mentioned elsewhere, what real friends will do is point out the flaws in your game so that you can address them, not swing from your nuts in some misguided effort to please you.

The small-press community needs more gut-level honesty (and less artificially inflated hype) to grow productively. Some feelings may get hurt, sure, though at what cost? Better games? That sounds like a fair trade-off to me.