I've seen it praised once or twice, but barely mentioned here. The self-praise on the company's website is scaring me a little to put it bluntly. It makes claims at being an alternative to hack and slash, but also as an alternative to melodrama. Meanwhile, it's constant talk of detailed combat rules and roleplaying-driven character advancement (or whatever the hell it is) makes me wonder if it isn't just extremely potent hacknslash and melodrama all at once.

One of the things I like about this site is that there are people here who have played it all, and who will more or less tell it as they see it. So I figured this was the place to ask for something other than fan-raving and self-contradictory (and likewise overenthused/underinformative) advertising.

Who knows. If it passes the rpgsite test, I might even have to pick it up.

So who's played or read this thing and what do you think? Is it good? Bad? Overhyped? What are the mechanics like? Does it come with a (good/bad) setting?

Quote from: beejazzIs it good?

It's decent, though bad artwork, poor layout, and confused editing do detract from the overall package.

QuoteBad?

Not as such.

QuoteOverhyped?

Yes. Specifically, the combat mechanics being touted as extremely realistic is a bit misleading, as they're based largely on recreational medieval combat (e.g., SCA battles, ARMA tourneys). They're easily the best tabletop recreation of simulated medieval combat that I've ever read, though recreating simulated combat and simulating real combat are two different things.

The designers and several apologists have, on numerous occasions, proudly referred to SCA and ARMA experience as some kind of universally recognized pedigree that proves them experts in real medieval combat. They would have been better off claiming verisimilitude as opposed to realism, as this (i.e., verisimilitude) is what the game actually brings to the table. Now, all of that said. . .

Melee combat is TRoS is still far more lethal and believable than that found in many fantasy RPGs (ranged combat is ultra-deadly in the core book, perhaps erroneously so). If you try to play it like D&D, you'll find that the bodies pile up rather quickly. If you're looking for 'gritty' pulp fantasy, the combat will please you immensely.

QuoteWhat are the mechanics like?

Nothing special, really. The most innovative thing that the system does is introduce the concept of Spiritual Attributes which are goal-oriented traits defined by the player of a character and which increase as a character accomplishes tasks related to them. They're a very early (and noticeably rougher) predecessor of things like 'Keys' in the Shadow of Yesterday. They're a very cool idea, though they certainly don't play as large a role (mechanically speaking) as more traditional traits (e.g., Strength) do.

The only truly bad part of the system is the section pertaining to magic as presented in the core book. Many people consider the initial presentation either lacking or totally unplayable. That said, since most spell casters will be NPCs (usually evil ones) if you run your game in true pulp fashion, this usually isn't a huge concern during actual play. Be aware, however, that the core magic rules are disliked by many people for a wide variety of different reasons (Google should turn up threads).

QuoteDoes it come with a (good/bad) setting?

It does come with a setting, though most of it is implied via the rules and the parts that are actually specified aren't anything to write home about (indeed, I'm not certain that I know anybody who has ever used the default setting).

Quote from: jdrakehIt's decent, though bad artwork, poor layout, and confused editing do detract from the overall package.

This is a bit off-putting, as good art is alot of what fuels my impulse buys, and as bad (or even just mediocre) layout is a major turn-off for me.

QuoteYes.

Figured.

QuoteSpecifically, the combat mechanics being touted as extremely realistic is a bit misleading,

Having seen the "realism" debates before, I am aware that no rules are going to be realistic in the sense of imitating reality all or even most of the time. Typically it refers to detail, lethality, and (a word I don't totally get... hasn't come up much in casual conversation... but mentioned alot in debates) versimilitude.

QuoteMelee combat is TRoS is still far more lethal and believable than that found in many fantasy RPGs (ranged combat is ultra-deadly in the core book, perhaps erroneously so). If you try to play it like D&D, you'll find that the bodies pile up rather quickly. If you're looking for 'gritty' pulp fantasy, the combat will please you immensely.

I'm not looking for high mortality specifically. But I'm sure I could put it to good use if it were done well.

QuoteNothing special, really. The most innovative thing that the system does is introduce the concept of Spiritual Attributes which are goal-oriented traits defined by the player of a character and which increase as a character accomplishes tasks related to them. They're a very early (and noticeably rougher) predecessor of things like 'Keys' in the Shadow of Yesterday. They're a very cool idea, though they certainly don't play as large a role (mechanically speaking) as more traditional traits (e.g., Strength) do.

Ah... so something along the lines of a RP-related circumstance bonus? Plus being the basis for character advancement.


I actually haven't heard of Shadow of Yesterday...

QuoteThe only truly bad part of the system is the section pertaining to magic as presented in the core book. Many people consider the initial presentation either lacking or totally unplayable. That said, since most spell casters will be NPCs (usually evil ones) if you run your game in true pulp fashion, this usually isn't a huge concern during actual play. Be aware, however, that the core magic rules are disliked by many people for a wide variety of different reasons (Google should turn up threads).

Ah. They didn't mention the magic system as much on their site. I did find that kind of ominous.

QuoteIt does come with a setting, though most of it is implied via the rules and the parts that are actually specified aren't anything to write home about (indeed, I'm not certain that I know anybody who has ever used the default setting).

Another thing that seemed virtually unmentioned. Good to know it's more implied and only underwhelming. I was affraid of it being too closely tied into the system. I tend to homebrew setting in general.

Quote from: beejazzHaving seen the "realism" debates before, I am aware that no rules are going to be realistic in the sense of imitating reality all or even most of the time.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the claim that was initially being made about TRoS (some people still make it, though I think that the authors have backed off of that stance quite a bit).

Quote. . . versimilitude.

Verisimilitude is the state or quality of something that exhibits the appearance of truth or reality (in RPGdom, it refers to rules that simulate certain things that one may find in a given reality, without simulating the whole of that reality mechanically).

QuoteAh... so something along the lines of a RP-related circumstance bonus? Plus being the basis for character advancement.

Yes, that sums it up in a nutshell.

QuoteI actually haven't heard of Shadow of Yesterday...

It's another overhyped (but good) game. I have a copy of the 1st Edition, though I believe it has a 2nd now (available through Lulu).
 

QuoteAnother thing that seemed virtually unmentioned. Good to know it's more implied and only underwhelming. I was affraid of it being too closely tied into the system. I tend to homebrew setting in general.

TRoS is very well-suited to being used for homebrews, as it's more a system than a full game (i.e., a self-contained setting, premise, and system).

Quote from: beejazzSo who's played or read this thing and what do you think? Is it good? Bad? Overhyped? What are the mechanics like? Does it come with a (good/bad) setting?

One of the few role-playing games I sold when I moved (Weapons of the Gods was another). It looked promising, but was rather disappointing in the end.

The "realism" part seems rather overhyped, nevermind the endorsement of the "HACA" or whatever Clements calls his group now. You've got lots of weapons and maneuvers with historic names, but the mapping between rules and realistic combat will always differ a lot, so I don't see a particular advantage of TROS vs Harn or GURPS.

But nevermind, it's a rather gritty fighting system, which in itself is enough to put it into the realism section of RPGs. Some of the combat rules are rather neat, and I like the general idea of splitting dice pools, allowing for some neat tactics without additional maneuver rules.

I'm not so fond of the rest of the system. The skill system uses another mechanic, the priority-based character creation is a bit too raw and there isn't enough to do for non-"swordslingers". The wizardry rules are not balanced (okay, intentionally, but that doesn't make it better). The world is the epitome of faux-European meh-ness.

The art is mostly bad, the layout is positively craptastic.

Quote from: beejazzI've seen it praised once or twice, but barely mentioned here. The self-praise on the company's website is scaring me a little to put it bluntly. It makes claims at being an alternative to hack and slash, but also as an alternative to melodrama. Meanwhile, it's constant talk of detailed combat rules and roleplaying-driven character advancement (or whatever the hell it is) makes me wonder if it isn't just extremely potent hacknslash and melodrama all at once.

Not really. TRoS is basically a Fantasy Heartbreaker - the designers weren't satisfied with D&D and decided to publish their own "superior" rules. Hence all the criticism of "other games" which only really applies to D&D. Then the Forge adopted them and Ron Edwards got all excited about it, so they declared themselves Narrativists even though the game is patently about realism, realism, realism all the way.

It's a combat system with some not very good rules for other stuff bolted on, and the designers spend a lot of time in it talking about how much better and more realistic it is than DnD presumably never having heard of Runequest.

Ron Edwards adopted it as a game he promoted because you get to roll lots of dice and kill things ("blood opera man" as he put it), but really I don't think it's a patch on games with similar design goals such as Harnmaster or Runequest.

Imperator's had some good results with it though so it may be worth asking his view.

Oh, and the magic system is not so good, hugely powerful but with some really odd conceptual issues where they have high powered magic but then try to make it make sense within a scientific paradigm even though it really doesn't.  

It's a clever combat engine, you play it if you play it for the gritty fights.

Thanks for the info guys! I have to admit that it's dropped a rung or two on my priorities list, but I am still interested in it for the combat. If I can find a print copy and still have money after SAGA and some other stuff, I might pick it up. I don't much like PDF to begin with (hurts my eyes), so knowing the layout sucks is very useful to me.

Also, I've seen it compared (albeit unfavorably) to both RQ and Harnmaster. Having seen the RQ SRD and loved it, how does it compare? Also, what's Harnmaster like compared to RQ and Riddle? I ask because I like my combats pretty detailed, if not as specifically lethal as this is sounding.

Another thing... the initiative seems odd. The example they show and the justification for it seems more like the polar opposite of the "real time" they claim on the site. It looks more like "two people duke it out until one hurts the other... move to the next scene" or whatever than "it all happens at once."

I've read it. I'm on the overhyped side. It's not any more realistic than anything else.

Seanchai

sounds like it would be worth picking up on the cheap, just to check out.

the production isn't too horrendous, is it?

Might help to know what "TRoS" stands for.

The Riddle of Steel.

Quote from: beeber. . . the production isn't too horrendous, is it?

The physical construction of the book is fine, though the artwork and layout are both very, very, poor.

Quote from: jdrakehThe physical construction of the book is fine, though the artwork and layout are both very, very, poor.

ick.

make that on the very, very cheap.  :barf:

Quote from: beejazzAlso, I've seen it compared (albeit unfavorably) to both RQ and Harnmaster. Having seen the RQ SRD and loved it, how does it compare? Also, what's Harnmaster like compared to RQ and Riddle? I ask because I like my combats pretty detailed, if not as specifically lethal as this is sounding.

For combat, and actually many other things, HM is like an elaborated version of RQII/RQIII/BRP, at least if you forget about strike ranks (which I don't know if MRQ uses anyway). The first big difference in combat is that HM gives you a little matrix to cross-reference levels of success of attacker/defender--but the basics are the same, you need a better success on your attack than whatever the defender parries/dodges/blocks with. The really big difference is that HM treats each wound separately and with a few more die rolls...depending on the edition (I know 1st better), you first determine the impact (based on how well you hit and the weapon), then you subtract for armor (which varies by weapon type), then you look up the excess impact on a chart (again varying by weapon type, i.e., blunt, edged, point) which gives an effect. These effects are a combination of saving throws to avoid going unconscious/losing a limb/tripping/etc. and (yes) an additional dieroll for how badly the wound impairs you. The cumulative effect of wounds isn't like HP in D&D: instead, your impairment makes you worse at everything including staying conscious when you get hit again. So there's a death spiral and good gory detail. On top of that, HM has a nice set of low-tech healing rules that require a series of saving throws, over the course of which you may develop an infection, which could require amputation.

Based on reading, TRoS is a very different beast. I don't know how well it works but where neither RQ nor HM really promise a great deal of tactics on the level of an individual duel TRoS requires you to choose maneuvers and allocate dice to them out of a pool. RQ and HM do let you do things like shield-bash, counterstrike, or knockback, but TRoS seems like more of a guessing-game combined with maneuvering the opponent into a position of weakness by forcing him to react to your initiative. Whether or not that's to your taste, another issue is that the rules really don't provide a very good picture at all of how a combat with multiple figures per side would work.

Incidentally someone ported the Spiritual Attributes idea from TRoS into HM. Bearing in mind that HM is a d% game, it should be pretty easy to adapt the idea to BRP/MRQ. You can find it at http://www.lythia.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=57