The Riddle of Steel [System]

[Conners]

Who here has heard of the system called, The Riddle of Steel (it seems to be relatively new)?

It's a role playing system with fun, realistic and deadly combat. It also has a system of character creation which can give very accurate representations of characters, as well as a surprisingly intuitive advancement system.
I've gotten quite interested in it already, and would like to recommend it--mostly so that I have more people to play it with.

Here's the link to the main site: http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/whatis/

There's already a recruitment thread for a game, for those who are interested.

[elliott20]

seems interesting. Though, I was kind of annoyed by the what is page. The guy writing it was treating the game like nobody has ever thought of doing a game where crunching the system results in narrativist play.

[Conners]

I see your point... To be fair, almost every official Role Playing game out there probably tries to sell itself just as shamelessly.

Regardless of their boasting, they actually do a d**ned good job of it. The learning curve isn't too bad either.


If you are interested in trying it out, I've started a recruitment thread as said: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...41#post5789241
I've already offered to help people with the rules, so that they don't have to buy a rulebook just to work out if the system is fun to them.

[elliott20]

okay, I'll take a closer looksy and maybe I'll join.

[Tsotha-lanti]

seems interesting. Though, I was kind of annoyed by the what is page. The guy writing it was treating the game like nobody has ever thought of doing a game where crunching the system results in narrativist play.

Researchers believe that creating a narrativist system releases brain chemicals in game developers that cause undeserved arrogance. Seriously, check out Amber.

TROS is great, though. The combat supplement, The Flower of Battle, is also freaking excellent - it's got the best battle system I've come across, and so simple yet complex. And the monster/animal supplement, Of Beasts and Men, is likewise great (even though they didn't include prices for barding; wtf?), with 90% of the book devoted to describing the creatures, and 10% to their stats.

[Conners]

@elliott20: Good to hear, we need a couple more players before we're more-or-less set.


@Tsotha-lanti:Since you're so keen on the system, Tsotha-lanti, why don't you come and look at the recruitment thread ? If you would like to DM, it would be appreciated.

[Thane of Fife]

Note that there's a set of Quickstart rules under "Game and Downloads".

I do think it looks like a good game.

[Conners]

Also note that the quickstart rules are only the tip of the iceberg. For example, there are only two physical attributes instead of five. There are probably many more things, but as some with access to the full rulebook, I didn't bother reading too much.

EDIT: Not that I'm saying you shouldn't try out the Quick-Start rules. While I haven't read them properly, it does seem like a well-done sampler. It should serve well as an introduction to the game, I'm guessing.

[WalkingTarget]

I have a friend who sells a game at the Forge booth at GenCon (where TRoS is generally sold) and I'll usually sit in on a demo if one's getting started while I'm there and they need somebody to fill out a group. I think it's an interesting system and combat was always a blast, but I had the benefit of having the session run by the guy who wrote it. It seems to me that the combat mechanic would take a while to fully internalize and run smoothly/quickly.

[Conners]

I was under the impression that TROS combat would run better by PBP than DnD combat does... Not so much of the keeping charts of where characters are, all the spell effects, skill checks constantly in some situations (you do get that in Tros, but only one skill check constantly under some circumstances).

What I think the advantage would be, is 1) The combat is exciting enough that the players would probably keep checking back. 2) It's simple enough that the DM only needs to step in occasionally, rather than rule the whole fight (he does have to do the enemies still, of course). And 3) There doesn't need to be a turn order in large skirmishes... everyone is fighting frantically at the same time. You can probably get away with letting the players fight more than one combat round ahead of the others, in some cases.

So, WalkingTarget, would you like to see how TROS ends up in a PBP game ? If so, please follow this link and join in: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...14#post5792414

[Tsotha-lanti]

I have a friend who sells a game at the Forge booth at GenCon (where TRoS is generally sold) and I'll usually sit in on a demo if one's getting started while I'm there and they need somebody to fill out a group. I think it's an interesting system and combat was always a blast, but I had the benefit of having the session run by the guy who wrote it. It seems to me that the combat mechanic would take a while to fully internalize and run smoothly/quickly.

Weirdly, the combat mechanic is pretty intuitive and really simple. The fact that it doesn't get changed practically at all in, say, mounted combat is a huge advantage, too.

Initiative - declare attacks (red/white). Roll on a red/red tie. Buy initiative if applicable.
Attack and defense - choose maneuvers, allot dice from your pool. Observe any applicable rules for the maneuver (like activation costs).
Roll your dice against your ATN/DTN, compare successes. If the attacker wins, add the margin of victory to the weapon's base damage, roll hit location in the area targeted, deduct armor and Toughness, check the table to see what got mutilated.
Winner of the contest takes initiative for the next exchange.

It's really incredibly simple, at its core. The maneuvers add a megacrapoton of tactical depth and realism, and there's all sorts of trickery you'll do with your dice pool, but that's it.


And yeah, while at first blush it might seem like an in-depth combat system like TROS's could be difficult to run on PBP, D&D fights take at least as long (and often longer), and TROS rules don't depend on tracking precise positions and so on. That, and every PCs' combat runs independent of the others, usually; rounds are indeterminate/variable length, so players wouldn't have to wait on other players to take their actions, just the GM. The book even recommends not alternating between players one round at a time when playing at the table, but instead running one PC's fight for several rounds, then switching - it's more dramatic and smoother.

[Prometheus]

I read the rules and I really liked the system. It seemed to be just a hair more complicated than FATE, but have a lot of the strategic depth that is more characteristic of rule-heavy systems. I agree, it's almost the perfect PbP game.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I read the rules and I really liked the system. It seemed to be just a hair more complicated than FATE, but have a lot of the strategic depth that is more characteristic of rule-heavy systems. I agree, it's almost the perfect PbP game.

I can't actually think of any rules-heavy system that has the tactical depth, realism, and wonderful pacing (good for simulation, narration, and fun!) of TROS. Rolemaster is FAR heavier, and FAR worse in all aspects (the only remotely tactical aspect is how much OB goes into PB). GURPS is no contest at all (even the fairly nifty location damage system from Compendium II is outdone by miles). D&D can be pretty tactical, but never on the same level - at the end of the day, it's "I hit X for Y damage", where TROS is "I simultaneously block and attack with X and Y dice" or "I steal initiative and cut him down before his blow lands" or "I attack evasively, putting 4 dice in there and all the rest in my upward cut" or "I maneuver so only one of them can attack me, then cut him down"...

[Prometheus]

True. I guess what I really meant to say is that the intention of making a game-rules heavy is to make it have more strategic depth, but that doesn't always mean that it does to an appreciable degree. I think we can both agree that the nice thing about this Riddle of Steel system is that you get a lot of bang for your buck, which is the most important aspect (especially since any RPG can be built up or down with rules as desired).

[elliott20]

that's because most game designers confuse complexity with strategic depth so you end up with a lot of elements just for the sake of it and all it does is exponentially increase the learning curve.

[Conners]

Just though I should mention. I'm thinking about starting up a large-scale free-roaming campaign in a few months. Originally I was going to use 4E, but now I'm thinking of using the TROS system instead.

For this reason, I'm hoping a lot of people on these forums learn of TROS and gain interest. That way, I'll have enough people to play and help me DM.

[Darth Stabber]

Played TROS a couple of times and GM'ed it once. Loved it to death, will probably end up buying the game. The main book is okay, but once you add the flower of battle the game starts to shine. My last character had a flaw (don't remember the name), where if you made him mad enough, he had to attack and throw his whole combat pool on the first round, which seems bad but the flaw also game me bonus strength and since I was wearing some decent armor, it took all my foes had just to have a chance against the first strike, Berzerker FTW.

Combat system is just so beautiful. Site based damage and no hitpoints. If you get hit in the left arm, you get realistic penalties based on getting hit in the arm, if you get hit in the head, you get savagely realistic penalty. No matter how developed tactics get in D&D they have nothing on this system, period. Okay done with my fanboyness, I just need to spend the money to get the dang books already.

[Conners]

Might want to check out the game I'm apparently GMing, too.

[WalkingTarget]

It's really incredibly simple, at its core. The maneuvers add a megacrapoton of tactical depth and realism, and there's all sorts of trickery you'll do with your dice pool, but that's it.

The "megacrapton" of depth is what I was referring to. Not insurmountable, but it's just another system you'd have to work at for a while before grokking it properly (I mean, Exalted and Deadlands can have some tricky mechanics too, but after a few sessions' play I had them pretty well internalized; my college group played those games for years).

And yeah, while at first blush it might seem like an in-depth combat system like TROS's could be difficult to run on PBP, D&D fights take at least as long (and often longer), and TROS rules don't depend on tracking precise positions and so on. That, and every PCs' combat runs independent of the others, usually; rounds are indeterminate/variable length, so players wouldn't have to wait on other players to take their actions, just the GM. The book even recommends not alternating between players one round at a time when playing at the table, but instead running one PC's fight for several rounds, then switching - it's more dramatic and smoother.

Good points, I've never really played in a PbP game, though, so I wouldn't be one to comment on its suitability. For somebody who hangs out on a D&D-inspired webcomic website, D&D was never my cup of tea in the first place. Tactical nuances weren't really why we played, so games that focused on that aspect of combat weren't high on our list of priorities. Like I said, I always had fun playing it in the demos, there's just a learning curve that's steeper than some (especially if one doesn't frequently play games that use result tables heavily).

[Conners]

Assuming it isn't considering Necro-Posting, I'd like to bump this. Hoping some other [sarcasm] poor, unsuspecting fool lucky and wonderful person [/sarcasm] will read this thread and witness the awesomeness of TROS .

That way, I'll have some people to play with .