Have you played The Riddle of Steel? Of course you haven't, you only play d&d, space d&d and d&d clones.The Riddle of Steel is STILL the absolute greatest TTRPG system ever created and you're wasting your time in this hobby every moment you don't play it. There has been several attempts to replicate the majesty of design in this book since its release and all have failed.Do yourself and your group a favor and download The Riddle of Steel pdf.
>>96720541But I have and that's why I played some of it's successors
what so good about it?
>>96720619Not OP, but the main draw of Riddle and it's successors is the combat system and the narrative ties each character has to the world. In Riddle that takes the form of "Spiritual attributes" which have mechanical effects of adding dice to tests with a relevant drive and also are your means of advancing your character instead of a raw XP value.The combat is some of the best in the medium, but the games have been grappling with the same handful of problems since Riddle's inception ~30 years ago.
>>96720619Also not OP, but its combat system is superbly good for one-on-one duels using late medieval long swords. That's because it was design by guys who sparred IRL using late medieval longswords. It is pretty good with other melee weapons, shit for ranged weapons, and lol-tier for everything else. House-ruling is key.t. someone who owns three of the books and has played it for years.
>>96720541give a thorough and nuanced argument why this game is better than harnmaster 1e
>>96720541I ran it years ago but ran into the wall of trying to teach my crunch allergic players its rules admittedly I probably didn't do a very good job and haven't bothered to run it since. I should really find another group for it but I haven't been bothered to put in the effort
>>96720619Character creation and progression are tied to clear motivations and the game world by spiritual attributes.Combat is descriptive, tactical and dangerous. Players generally want to avoid fighting or risk death.Fantasy races actually feel different. Dwarves are tough as hell and the fey are magical.Skills get better with practice. The more you do something the better you get at it.
>>96720541Oh yeah? What's the core gameplay loop?
>it's a dice poolFuck off.
other conan based systems?
How do the spiritual successors compare? Anyone played them? Song of Swords, Blades of the Iron Throne, etc.
>>96729282I've played Song of Swords the most personally, out of all it's successors it's the one that's closest that isn't made by the same guy. But it's got it's share of flaws that require some homebrewing to smooth out the quirks and kinks.Blade of the Iron Throne is made by one of the original Riddle authors to my understanding, so it's gonna play the closest. At least from what I've read.Sword and Scoundrel and Band of Bastards are a more rules lite approach with less focus on the HEMA combat. I have the books but haven't really read through them since it doesn't interest me as much. It's got some neat ideas, like building your own weapons.
>>96720687That sounds incredibly fucking boring and poorly designed.
>>96732106You sound like a fag and your shit's all retarded. It's actually great. Combat against multiple opponents is generally suicide and so is charging against ranged weapons. Granted, the system doesn't handle mass combat very well, but most systems don't.
>>96720541How well does this system handle fighting monsters and other non human creatures? Asking cause I want to run a game in this system where players are exploring a strange land with monsters and the like.
>>96734833Reasonably well, Riddle itself even has an expansion that covers fighting monsters like gargoyles and dragons or even mundane things like dogs and horses. The system (and it's successors) are actually pretty good at handling non-humans, they just struggle with mass combats like 4 players vs 15 brigands.
>>96732636Again, that sounds incredibly boring and poorly designed.>Range is shit>except if it's the NPCs>You have to do 1v1s while the rest of the party sits there with their thumbs up their asses doing fucking nothingThat's the worst possible way you could handle TTRPG combat. They are COOPERATIVE games. Only a selfish, narcissistic sociopath could enjoy a game where they're the only one who gets any spotlight.
>>96720541>Baby plays his first non-D&Dogshit
>>96720687What's funny is that it's standard of "shit" is just the norm for most games.
I've been playing this for more than ten years with my group as our main fantasy system (and also adapted it to do Cthulhu which works surprisingly well, and scifi which is a mess but fun). We never used the official setting but a homebrewed fantasy world and by now we have a shitton of houserules that honestly make it more of a derivative system than the original but I still really love the core of this system (character creation/progression and the combat that is) and there is really nothing better for lowish fantasy where more or less any fight is high stakes.
>>96720619It has an EDGE, man
>>96738214Let me correct you actually, ranged is shit for both the player and NPCs.
>>96738214>You have to do 1v1s while the rest of the party sits there with their thumbs up their asses doing fucking nothingYou don't, actually. Riddle and its successors are built to best handle 1vX, where X is any number of opponents. This usually means everyone gets involved in their own little fights that resolve on their own turns, just like any other game. And there are moves to interact with other ongoing fights, so you can intercept a thrust that's about to gut your party remember and he could cut down the guy you just tied up with a wild swing.I'm more acquainted with its successors, where fighting multiple opponents is highly risky and you generally need to threaten them with extremely dangerous moves (Like trying to cleave through multiple opponents at once), or you have to make a test every turn to keep them from being able to fully gang up on you and easily overwhelm you.
>>96729282>Blade of the Iron ThroneIt's a good successor. I only played it so I can't go into greater detail, but it is a much better Conan-esque game that TROS was, and its magic gave me fewer headaches.>Song of SwordsIt's in an awkward place. It is probably the objectively best and most interesting successor since it's been superseded by a fan-made Revised edition, as the original studio basically split apart when the owner/lead developer let his addiction to coke and alcohol spiral out of control, until he had literally driven everyone out of the company. I wish that was a joke.Unfortunately the lead developer also did maybe 1% of the work on the game, and mostly wrote dogshit lore that nobody cared about and posted on /tg/, so it's never been properly finished, it never got a magic system, and the last supplement that came out for it, meant for fighting monsters, animals, and giant "behemoths", was broken to the point of not even being playable. The revised edition fixed all of this at least, even introducing magic and fixing the broken supplement, and partly solved the issue of larger combats. It's still sad how it the core game was mismanaged though.>etc.The only other successor I know well enough to talk about is Sword & Scoundrel, and found it unimpressive. It tries to be lighter and in doing so, goes from d10s to d6s, but it loses all of the granularity that made Riddle of Steel interesting in the process and doesn't really offer anything to replace it. You can basically get the same results that S&S achieves with Riddle of Steel by just ignoring all of the advanced rules.
>>96740249Yes, now that you mention it. The combat system just sets the bar so high.
>>96720687>House-ruling is key.what house rules would you recommend?
>>96720687>it's superbly designed>House-ruling is key.Well, which is it?
>>96741544Not him, but it depends really heavily on what kind of game you're looking for. If you're looking for a more historical game, I would suggest one of it's successors in Song of Swords or Sword and Scoundrel first. If you want Conan, then stick with Riddle or Blade of the Iron Throne
>>96720681>>96720687>>96721796So decent 1v1 fighting rules with boring story fag progression>House-ruling is keySo it's shit got it.
>>96742453NTA but I agree with the assessment.The system was designed for and is superb when it comes to swords and/or smaller fights, with other weapons or combat setups your mileage may vay but some good house rules can easily fix it and make it great even in these instances.
>>96720687>House-ruling is keySo then, what makes it "the greatest TTRPG ever designed", like OP said? You can house-rule any TTRPG you want, and the amount of house-ruling needed is going to depend on the group.
>>96743237Hyperbolic bullshit. There's obviously a difference between making rules from scratch and adjusting the rules present in the book.
>>96745953>There's obviously a difference between making rules from scratch and adjusting the rules present in the book.And whether or not a group needs to do either, both, or neither depends on the group.So what makes The Riddle of Steel "the greatest TTRPG ever designed"?
>>96747174Why keep repeating the question when you've received an answer? Go be mad somewhere else.
>>96747260I didn't receive an answer.
>>96720541How well does it do magic?What about characters that mix magic and swordplay?Are the mechanics for players and creatures symmetric?How "handwave-y" is the system in general?
>>96747917>How well does it do magic?Riddle is based off Conan style sword and sorcery, so it specifically has some brutal magic which can age you a few years if you fuck up a roll. Most spells are rituals rather than vancian style "cast fireball in combat">What about characters that mix magic and swordplay?See above, magic using characters are limited in what spells they can use when engaged in melee. But you can still be plenty skilled with wielding a sword despite being a wizard.>Are the mechanics for players and creatures symmetric?Yes. Humans and non-humans are 90% symmetrical, non-humans just have special quirks to cover situations where they have multiple legs or a turtle shell or something like that.>How "handwave-y" is the system in general?It's pretty damn crunchy, there's a ton of skills and combat is tracked blow by blow. There's not really a lot of handwaving going on.
>>96747917>How well does it do magic?Very poorly or very well imo.It's poor, in that compared to the martial combat, magic is vague and handwavy. You build spells (Possibly spontaneously) as if it were Ars or Mage, but your guidelines are pretty fucking weak and the spells can be easily minmaxed if you take them at face value. Also, the more complicated a spell is, the more harshly you're punished for failure (And the harder it is to succeed in the first place), so you're very heavily incentivized to do so. Run at face value, every wizard would just be packing a spell that instantly polymorphs whoever it's cast at.However, since magic is very handwavy and lite, this isn't really an issue if your group understands the vibe you want, and it can work pretty decently with that, and if you have some gentleman's agreements about how spells can be made.>What about characters that mix magic and swordplay?Basically the same as with magic as a whole.>Are the mechanics for players and creatures symmetric?Mostly yeah.>How "handwave-y" is the system in general?Combat is rules-heavy and excellent. For everything else, it's not as rules-heavy, but still has great amounts of detail, but doesn't get in the way. As I've gained experience, I've come to prefer its successors more though, because I like crunchy combat/conflict resolution, and for everything else to be rules-lite/handwavy, which they deliver on.
>>96740672Jimmy did what now?
>>96747260I never got an answer.
>>96734916>>96740672NTA, but which one of the successors handles fighting giant monsters the best? If Blades of the Iron Throne is designed to emulate Conan stories, I guess that would be the best one for this?I’m actually looking for a game to run a Hyborian-age inspired campaign
>>96749830I never encountered monsters in Iron Throne so I can't say for certain, BUT I do know it has sufficient rules to let you fight a rhino, so it can probably do it.Sword & Scoundrel had zero support for it the last I'd looked.Song of Swords has it, but the rules are hot garbage. The revised version had a working version, but you'd have to go hunt it down/one of the people who worked on it because I don't have the rules on me. Maybe they're still hanging in the Opaque Discord.>>96749099I'd detail the full extent of it, but it's really just what you'd expect if you've ever had to deal with a substance abuser: Emotional outbursts, total lack of responsibility or work ethic, and a general downward spiral. The last time I saw him he was throwing a fit and banning+blocking everyone who had spoken to him on discord recently because of something with kickstarter.
>>96729291what homebrew do you staple onto this system?
>>96720541>This game is good, because.... it's good!Great pitch, OP, have a (You)!In reality, this game i s like every other late 90s till early 00s project: still having all the 90s pointless bloat, still struggling with its own tone, still being deep down a dungeon crawler (despite pretending otherwise) with needlessly convoluted combat. Speaking of combat - it has one of the more obtuse systems that, naturally, does it to claim "muh realism", while in practice, it just makes the combat loop take too fucking long for no real gain.I'd rather play Barbarian of Lemuria. Does technically same thing, ten times more fun to play and run, no convoluted bullshit and not attracting autismos that learned about HEMA a month ago and now try to shine their "knowledge" about it on other players.
>>96747260>Still didn't provide the answer
>>96747917Everything in this game that isn't pvp combat (lol) is shit.It was made by bunch of HEMA fags, to be a game for HEMA fags.So either you are using a longsword, or at least a broadsword and a shield, or the game requires house-ruling. Lots of itFor your questions:>How well does it do magic?Very poorly. You might as well either make it complete fiat, with a single roll, or copy any given magic system from any fucking game and it would still work better and be more fitting than the stuff provided. And I mean any game - you could put there Ars Magica magic, you could grab CoC magic, you could use any of the GURPS versions, you could use FATE aspects or fucking ADD 2e big ass spellbooks.... and you would be better off than TRoS magic system>What about characters that mix magic and swordplay?The what, again? The game has no space for such concept. Houseruling>Are the mechanics for players and creatures symmetric?Kinda. However, fighting monsters means you need to constantly account for their physiognomy during encounters, meaning large section of the combat system either don't work or are working differently, making it a slog (and it's already a slow combat system)>How "handwave-y" is the system in general?Not at all. Think DnD 3e tier "do you have a feat for that?" design. You don't? Then fuck you. Combat meanwhile is pure crunch and bean-counting, since it was designed with "realistic" duelling in mind. Didn't prevent idiots from insisting this is a pulp game.
>>96749900For Song of Swords?The big one is fixing damage. The less involved way is to calculate Strength Damage Bonus 1:1 up until 4 strength, then 2:1 after that. So 4 strength gives you 4 damage, 6 gives you 5 damage, 8 gives you 6 and so on. It's the simple way of handling it, but you still have some of the quirks like lightsaber weapons that'll insta-kill people with a glancing blow.The other way that I personally use is to axe toughness altogether and use the vanilla damage bonus (damage = half strength), then implement a wound limit equal to the number of successes on a blow. You have to make some other tweaks, like adjusting the protection values of armor, shields weapon guards and so on. But it neatly fixes a lot of the primary issues riddle games have had basically since their inception.Other stuff is just making small tweaks to talents, ranged defense and adding homebrew races to taste.
>>96749961Not that anon, and I mean this as a 100% sincere question, but:Why the fuck bother and what's even the appeal?See, this is one of those things that I just can't wrap my head around when it comes to TTRPG: this chase after "realistic combat", that ultimately just means extreme level of rule bloat for no noticeable gain, and usually being also very poorly edited and requiring extensive homebrewing to make it work.So - what's even the point?>inb4 whatever insults you lob instead of answering a simple question
>>96750004Because I make a couple changes to the game (just like most other TTRPGs on the market) and make a game I already like more enjoyable. Do you play every system you play completely RAW with zero changes at all?SoS has some of the best combat in the medium in my opinion. Riddle set a solid foundation in the beginning and it's just a matter of iterating on it until it reaches some level of polish.
>>96750004Maybe i can explain the apeal of SoS better.The combat isnt just bloat. Its an act, react resolve loop that requires the players to outgame the DM or each other in the case of hobo knife fights.Your not just stabbing the bandit in the guts, your finding chinks in armor to maximise your damage to get that sweet injury table that tells you that your opponant will never sire children.To do this you need to actively get past his shield in a gambit i.e you have to effectively bet against the DM which each blow.When this is in a campaign your players genuinely fear combat in a way few other systems really capture. Combat is deadly for both parties but not due to rocket tag but instead circunstance. Players sitting at a table WILL be stressed that the man across them has a knife because hes within their range for e.gIf a character has a goblin on his back, it doesnt matter that he is a fully armored bezerker, hes going to be freaking out because that shit covered shank might be his end.Meanwhile they know this applies to everything so suddenly the invincible dragon doesnt look so tough when they realize its missing a scale under its arm.
>>96750069This anon more or less covered exactly what the draw is to these systems, and why I made the changes that I did. That goblin is in fact, a lot less threatening when the armored berserker can in fact just shrug off getting stabbed in the face without even taking a scratch.
>>96750069>>96750096>there are 500 steps to rolling to attack therefore its good gamelollmao
>>96750103But that's not even true.You and your opponent pick a maneuver, you wager dice and you roll off. There's at most, 4 steps; including choosing to attack, wagering, comparing successes then resolving damage.
>>96750116Which takes fucking ages because both the player and the DM have to sit there choosing a maneuver from a massive list with a million tiny exceptions and extra rules. One full round across the table can take 2+ hours EASILY
>>96750130Why would you do that, come on the internet and tell lies like that?Either you never played the game and you're lying through your teeth, or your group is made up exclusively of chronically ADHD zoomers with the memory of a goldfish.
>>96750163Can't help but notice that you didn't refute anything and immediately stooped to ad hominem. Thanks for showing everyone who was right in this argument.
>>96750130just swing
>>96750004>See, this is one of those things that I just can't wrap my head around when it comes to TTRPG: this chase after "realistic combat",Stop seething and think for a moment. What could be the purpose of realistic combat rules? What kind of atmosphere does that create and does that translate to the general vibe of the game? It obviously serves a purpose.
>>96750004>See, this is one of those things that I just can't wrap my head around when it comes to TTRPG: this chase after "realistic combat"Well, I can't speak for others, but I don't enjoy the games for "realism" (none are perfectly realistic anyways).I enjoy them because the combat enables a dynamic back-and-forth between two sides that creates a tense, strategic struggle for victory. But instead of sort of getting that when I have 6 players fighting 12 NPCs, I can get that from just two people fighting.So, since the "rulebloat" (it's a pretty small book compared to what's standard, being only 272 pages and covering the equivalent of the PHB, DMG, and MM) has had gains I had no issue identifying and great fun with, I think you may just be incapable of getting the point.
>>96750171What's there to refute? The game gives you a lot of options, your group doesn't like options. I understand that anon, but that's a personal issue on your part. If you're really struggling picking from a list every time (To which, I would hope you'd memorize at least the most commonly used maneuvers), print out or write out some flashcards that cover the maneuver.
>>96749870>it has sufficient rules to let you fight a rhino, so it can probably do it.Thank you for your answer anonI have a follow up question, if I may:How about fighting a bunch of low level opponents? It was mentioned earlier that Song of Swords managed to come up with a way to streamline that, even though otherwise it seems like a system that needs a good bit of improvement, but what about Blade of the Iron Throne?I understand that in a system that’s aiming for verisimilitude, being outnumbered should be appropriately dangerous, but at the same time being able to take on a bunch of mooks is also a staple of the genre in Sword and Sorcery (and Conan especially)
>>96750015>Do you play every system you play completely RAW with zero changes at all?First time? Yes, of course.If I find the system enjoyable or doing its job well, I stick to it and run/play it for a while. If it needs fixes, I change it later.But if the system right off the box requires homebrewing and house-ruling, it's a shit system, period. There is just no way around it.>SoS has some of the best combat in the medium in my opinionThat's literally my question here: WHY you think that way.It's the "why" that's never provided>>96750069First of all, whoever you were arguing with, wasn't me and sorry for the asshat.But, to check if I get this right (and I'm 100% sincere here, not trying to troll or whatever):The appeal is in meticulous, extra-detailed one-upmanship about who made the more broken combo, in a similar way how people enjoy max-optim build autism?>>96750193That's the problem: they don't serve any real purpose in my eyes. They are chase after the impossible, the idea that you can have "real" combat by piling up rules, modifiers and special techniques and then operating the game on principle of piling this up.This works in, dunno, deck building game. There it makes sense.Tabletop RPG? Why?!>tbc
Here’s something I’ve been wondering for a while:Is it me, or is Osprey’s En Garde some sort of streamlined wargame adaptation of Riddle of Steel?Or is this just a case of gaming convergent evolution?
>>96750218But you don't need the massive amount of minutae details those games dwell into, that's the thing.Let me give you some basic examples:Dzikie Pola 1e is a back-and-forth system, where each turn you have a "mana pool" (for lack of better way to describe it) to spend on your moves. But the combat itself is just set of fixed attacks (4 types), fixed parries (3 types), feint (just feint, singular) and that's it, with d100 roll and building your lineup of moves each turn, until you run out of mana (meaning anything between 1 to 4 different attacks/parries/moving around/feints). Yet the combat is a highly dynamic back and forth, because you have this simple resource to manage that's makes it endless loop of thinking on your feet how to not be turned into shishkebab. Entire combat ruleset is 15 pages, in a 380 pages long rulebook (and this is combat-centric game)Broken Compass is a gonzo pulp system that's ENTIRELY build on back and forth dynamics (the game, in fact, is fully static without player input) and it's the most basic (to not call it simplistic) mechanics imaginable. But it's endless back and forth by design, despite being theatre of a mind thing where you don't even face a single target, but already clusters of enemies. It's covered across 6 pages. Even in shorthand edition, the game is 60 pages longSo what's the point of taking reactive system and adding to it massive rulebloat, other than (failed, due to the size of bloat and its arbitrary final outcome) chase after simulation that's by design bound to fail? You literally don't need those rules to get things moving in the direction you want them.
>>96750103>>96750130>>96750171Why would you try to derail an actual, sincere question I had and make a retarded set of strawman posts?Like what's your major malfunction, Private?
>>96750484And just to make it clear:It's not that your pointers are wrong.It's that I want to understand why people find it appealing to sieve through rulebloat in the first place.
>>96750465>>SoS has some of the best combat in the medium in my opinion>That's literally my question here: WHY you think that way.>It's the "why" that's never providedNTA but this>>96750069>The combat isnt just bloat. Its an act, react resolve loop that requires the players to outgame the DM>Your not just stabbing the bandit in the guts, your finding chinks in armor to maximise your damage>To do this you need to actively get past his shield in a gambit i.e you have to effectively bet against the DM which each blow.Perfectly answers that question as far as I’m concerned.There isn’t so many games around which can make combat between all martials parties feel1- Tactical and engaging2- Varied
>>96720541I honestly enjoy all hardcore shit like this this. Pendragon, too. Systems need to have some teeth to them in order to excite me. Give me a wizard the can animate an enemy's skeleton, rip it out of his body, and then make it stab another enemy to death.
>>96750465>The appeal is in meticulous, extra-detailed one-upmanship about who made the more broken combo, in a similar way how people enjoy max-optim build autism?How would you come to that conclusion? Seriously, how does "The game's rules are built on gambling, combat is genuine life and death" translate to "You guys want to dick measure who has the most broken builds."Riddle and it's successors don't lend itself to that kind of dick measuring contest, because constantly doing so means your character is going to fucking die. People are drawn to it because the combat is both tactile where individual choice in armor, weapon and style matter and it's appropriately consequential when swords are drawn. You don't run into 4-6 combat encounters per day with your carefully optimized build; you weigh the options any time you have to go into battle, or even avoid a fight altogether.There's a reason people say the games have "The best combat system you'll never use"
>>96750498Which sends it back to my reply to that post >>96750465And repeat of my question: is it the same kind of appeal that max-optim build autism?There are other games that do the thing described by 96750069, and they are doing it without having so many rules and lists of moves or different techniques for (meaningless in the grand picture, but still present) various weapons.As far as I see it, SoS appeals to the same people BB appeals to: extensive, almost autistic min-maxing to come up on top of adversary, without taking into account just about any other aspect of the game than the one-up mindset.Which, again, is great for duels, but when you have 3-5 people doing this around the table... I just don't see the game working at all. You might as well play a video game at this point. And I don't mean it as a diss, but just to note the amount of stuff you need to do in analog just for the sake of calculation that tells you that yep, you planned your attack well.It's so incredibly detached from TTRPG experience to me that I just don't get how people find it worth doing more than once to see how it works and then move on. Sure, different people, different tastes, but this is just so far away from doing anything else than murder simulator, I'm just baffled.
>>96750563>Seriously, how does "The game's rules are built on gambling, combat is genuine life and death"Maybe because this is such broad non-statement, that I focus instead on the actual content of the rules?You realise this statement describes ANY game with combat in it that isn't outright geared for players to win (like H + I vs pawns)? It's a non-descriptive "I like it, because I like it", detached from the content of the game itself.>People are drawn to it because the combat is both tactileHOW.It's like I need to repeat those two questions: why and how, because unless I stress them, they just get ignored.What you proceed to list is build optimisation: did you pick the best equipment, the best skills and used them for maximum efficiency. I fail myself to grasp how you DO NOT see this.>There's a reason people say the games have "The best combat system you'll never use"Except when you ask those people why they think so, they simply repeat that "because it's the best" or, which is even more confusing, act like this is the only system with action and reaction in existence, rather than it being a staple of the game design since at least the late 80s.The bottom line is: I'm asking you why you like this, and you tell me "because" and consider this an exhaustive answer.
How detailed is the damage system? I'm looking for a crunchy system, maybe not crunchy enough to track individual organ damage, but close.
>>96750617It's about that level of crunchy>maybe not crunchy enough to track individual organ damage, but close.This brings the obvious question:For what purpose?
>>96750604>I'm asking you why you like thisWhy are you asking?
>>96750623Autism? I don't know. After playing Mythras I can't go back to simple HP pool type systems. I need more detail. I want to know exactly where the blow lands and what kind of effect it has.
>>96750633It's called curiosity, anon. So I'm being curious why would you find such game appealing. Like what's the draw, because even if it's not appealing to me, it clearly is appealing to others. And I'm simply curious as to why and so see it from potentially different perspective.Problem being, if I ask, it's suddenly a problem to articulate why you like it and why you consider it worth your time beyond surface-level "because I like it". Gee, wow, what a great answer.If it helps, I also ask /d/eviants why they find their specific fetishes appealing. The main difference between /tg/ and /d/ is that they are far more chatty and capable of answering such questions, too.
>>96750648Again: for what purpose?At this point, I sincerely suggest trying BB. It's ugly as fuck, but covers for all the details without the drawback of having to consult/memorise extensive tables and rules, since the game is going to calculate it for you
>>96750669Why do you care?
>>96750688I don't.But that doesn't exclude being curious.I might as well ask you why you can't even explain why you like something that you like. Clearly, there must be a reason for it, yet you are either unable or incapable of stating it. We just spent past... 3 hours with you beating around the bush a simple question:What's the draw of this game.Actually answering it, rather than the most generic, catch-them-all statements that could be said about literally any game and would be fitting.
>>96750704*unwilling, unable or incapable
>>96750704It's been explained to you at length. Why do you still not get it?
>>96750725Because your answer boils down to "I like it, because I like it and I act like this is the only game in existence that has reactive combat".And this is a non-answer.But when you are nugged about it, you start asking me why I keep pegging you for it./Should I just run to conclusion you are unable to actually tell me why you enjoy this game, and now are doing your best to not admit it? Because I DO NOT want that outcome. I want a fucking answer to a simple question:What's the appeal?I'm in this hobby since the late 90s. I played and run a wide range of titles and for past decade, my main goal is to check out as many systems and their design principles as feasible. Not because this or that game is appealing to me, but because I want to see what they are doing on their own, why people play them and how they pan out outside the bubble of their fandom (for which I ran every Wednesday an open table at the local library, every 3 weeks new title to see how it "ticks").And each and every time I try a combat-centric game, it's one of the three options:>it's doing something completely new that no other game is doingThose are usually either narrative solutions or gameplay integration ones, where action=specific reactions cooked into the game>it's a build autism, plan and simpleNothing really to explain here>it's a rulebloat that assumes more rules and more details means better experienceAnd mind the word - experience. Not simulation, since those games rarely simulate, but experienceSo, here we are, with a game that's a clear case of third variant, and when I ask you why you like it, you are telling to me "because I do".Literally anything would be a better answer. Dunno, "I like it, because it validates my skill as a player to arrange the elements of the game mechanics in my favour" actually tackles the source of enjoyment, rather than blanket statement of "It's the best".tl;drI'm asking you why you like the game and you can't answer it
>>96750801>And this is a non-answer.Why?
>>96750604Are you being obtuse on purpose? How are character decisions build optimization? There's no objective "best equipment" or "best skills", hell skills don't even apply to combat at all. 60% of the game's combat is mind games, 35% of it is gambling and 5% of it is raw mechanical skill. That's what makes it tactile. You don't just go "I roll to attack", you deliberately try to outwit your opponent by getting them to over or underbid against your attacks, with the occasional hail mary last ditch efforts to clutch things out.
>>96750686BB?
>>96750805>Why do you like it?>Because I doThat's why>>96750816I said LIKE max-optim builds, not that it IS.>Tool up character for specific approach to combat>Get the right attack from the list>Consult the whole bunch of tables and subrules to get validation on your choice>Roll for it in the end, even if the roll is barely needed, the outcome was already decided by the pile-upThat's basically how the combat works. And that's build on the same logic that games build on max-optim builds: "I get validation for extensive knowledge of detailed game rules, and this appeals to me".The whole "gamble" in combat boils down to the fact you might get countered if your GM feels like it, but it's a) semi-reactive (duh) with b) pure fiat (because it's the GM decision, rather than automatic outcome) and c) the gamble is on GM's side (since he is initiating the reaction, and if it fails, then it only hastens NPC's death)>>96750130 was trollposting, but his point stands. It's about flexing who knows the rules better, and the rules are extensive for the sake of it, rather than improving anything in the experience, since you would be better off having an excel sheet for the combat.Actual gameplay boils down to just listing modifiers and re-checking them after every action, while the high lethality means it's all moot in the first place, as you are checking just how dead the target is, not if.
>>96750847Battle Brothers
>>96750875So you can't explain why it doesn't count as an answer? Then I guess it does.
>>96750884Grab some
>>96750896So you've just been baiting all along? Why admit to it?
>>96750875>Roll for it in the end, even if the roll is barely needed, the outcome was already decided by the pile-upBut that's wrong. Everything you said is objectively false. There is never a single scenario where a "roll is barely needed" unless you're doing the equivalent of a level 15 DnD fighter against a level 2 goblin. In which case you might have a slight argument, but against two fighters that are within the same ballpark there's no optimization game to win.
>>96750906I feel like at this point you are trying to slide the issue, for the sake pure semantics. "Oh, you mentioned build optim, now let's cling to that for next two hours". If that's your line, we are done here.If you plan to actually face the fact that if you have two equally tied characters, then it's about pulling from the list the most effective maneuver, precisely to decrease gambling and precisely to flex the system knowledge, or else you are at the mercy of (loopsided against "simple" solutions) RNG, then we can continue.So which one is it going to be?
I'm just mirroring your retarded routine of a 5 year old kid repeating the word why over and over. You think that's bait? That's very telling.
>itt: autismo who dislikes crunch-heavy games arguing with autismos who are into crunch-heavy games, and neither side can't grasp the concept of different people liking different thingsIt almost feels like /tg/ back in the good old days.
>>96750943You might instead answer the simple question, you know. By doing so about 3 hours ago, you wouldn't have to spent all that time being annoyed by the question you just keep dodging for no reason other than clearly enjoying arguing for the sake of it.
>>96750952>itt: people meticulously explaining why a game is good while one mentally stunted individual keeps chanting the word why like a magic spellfixed that for you
>>96750961You haven't answered my question either.>>96750805Have fun with it.
>>96750934>then it's about pulling from the list the most effective maneuverDoesn't exist. At no point does there exist a maneuver that automatically wins fights. Unless you're really gonna tell me making a better decision in the moment is "System mastery">or else you are at the mercy of (loopsided against "simple" solutions) RNGI suppose that's the case, given you're dead set on assigning it either of those arbitrary categories.I've had situations in my own games where statistically superior and better equipped fighters had the upper hand and were still put on the back foot because of a bit of luck and clever tactics from the other party. Like was explained to you hours ago, people enjoy the combat because it's never a sure thing so it has appropriate narrative weight.
>>96750455>How about fighting a bunch of low level opponents?All of them are pretty bad at it, with the exception of Song of Sword's revised fanbrew shit. However, this is either a problem or not a problem depending on how dangerous you want combat to be.In real life, fighting two people at once is almost certain death unless you're better than them and have certain situational advantages over them. In most of the games, it works out that way, though it's a bit TOO easy for 5 naked peasants to overpower a fully armored warrior.Basically, YMMV and it depends on what you want. If you want the verisimilitude of fighting two or more combatants you don't massively outclass to be a death sentence, they're all fine as-is.>>96750465>But if the system right off the box requires homebrewing and house-ruling, it's a shit system, period.Why? If you're fine with altering something after using it, why wouldn't you just pre-emptively alter it so it's better from the get-go?>It's the "why" that's never providedIt's been provided many times.
>>96754127>though it's a bit TOO easy for 5 naked peasants to overpower a fully armored warriorWell, the thing with SoS and most other systems is they're dead on with how easy it is to overpower someone if you throw out the fear of death. Like, 5 guys bumrushing the warrior at the same time is basically guaranteed for the naked men to pin him down, but it'll probably cost them a man or two. In reality, it's likely they'll hesitate long enough for the armored guy to get most of them. It's just a inherent issue in the medium of the division between the player/GM and the game.
>>96754127>though it's a bit TOO easy for 5 naked peasants to overpower a fully armored warrior. This is if the seneschal is playing the peasants as a pack of mindless automatons who are all not afraid of the sharp blade at their faces.
>>96750476>But you don't need the massive amount of minutae details those games dwell intoIf 272 pages is "massive", you might be retarded.>Dzikie Pola 1eHas more amounts of minutiae. You fail. Besides that, it sucks ass which is why nobody has bothered translating it.>Broken compassNever heard of it, looking it up it's just kickstarter garbage that nobody plays and would be totally incapable of covering the same stuff as TRoS and its successors.Since you're retarded enough to rep the shitty polish game, I take it you have never played TRoS and its successors, and don't actually know how this would relate to the topic.
>>96750604>Maybe because this is such broad non-statement, that I focus instead on the actual content of the rules?You should read them first, since you still haven't done so. You have argued around them instead.>You realise this statement describes ANY game with combat in it that isn't outright geared for players to winSee what I mean? Most games are designed to let the players win, and are as much gambling as playing slots. TROS is more like high stakes poker, or playing an actual game.>HOW.
>>96754197>You listed games I never heard about, so it means your arguments are invalidNta, but some top argumentation up there. No wonder he couldn't make you list reasons why TRoS is good.
>>96754218>NtaSure, buddy.
>>96754215>TROS is more like high stakes poker, or playing an actual game.Then prove it.Don't say "it's high stakes"Prove those high stakes.This is a game with dice involved, that means probabilities.You could EASILY show how low probability of success is, IF IT IS TRUE.Instead, you post Howie, because a SINGLE PERCENTAGE representing chance of successful attack would destroy your entire argument.
>>96754230I'm >>96750130Have fun with your ultra-detailed game that is build under assumption that obtuse means complex and lots of rules means lethal combat.
>>96750617It varies between the versions, but you usually have different damage types. Every hit location then has its own associated wound levels, where the higher it goes, the worse the injury, which in turn causes you to be stunned, take permanent penalties until it heals/is treated, and possibly to start bleeding out.Generally the wounds work the way you think they would. Take a cutting wound to the neck? You're gonna die very quickly. Stabbed in the guts with a spear? You can keep on trucking if you're tough, but you'll be at a higher risk of infection. Smashed in the chest with a mace? You'll be momentarily winded but fine. Struck on the head? You might get knocked out. Hits to the arms and legs can knock you down, and so on.
>>96750623>>96750669>>96750686>>96750604The bottom line is: The game isn't meant for you if you're confused as to why it's fun. That's fine. You can simply move on instead of seething impotently that other people enjoy things.
>>96754233This isn't a math dissertation. Nobody has to prove jack shit to you. If you can not infer meaning from casual conversation it might be better if you stuck with video games instead of shitting up a social hobby with your autism.There are multiple posts in this thread listing multiple reasons why TRoS is amazing, but you'd rather spam your inane ramblings of "why" presumably because you can't read.
>>96754172>>96754190>Well, the thing with SoS and most other systems is they're dead on with how easy it is to overpower someone if you throw out the fear of death. Like, 5 guys bumrushing the warrior at the same time is basically guaranteed for the naked men to pin him downIMO, it's not really that simple. Even if you don't have the fear of death, a skilled warrior irl would probably be able to kill or badly injure 2-3 people before they can even get close enough to grab him, and he can probably shank the last two, even if they are all relatively competent.It wouldn't be guaranteed to end up that way, but it basically is always a loss for him in TROS, and the peasants can do it with relative safety as well. Equipment is just a much bigger deal IRL than it is in TROS and the likes.I don't have a problem with this though, because rpgs aren't and shouldn't be exactly like real life, because real life is actually pretty boring.
>>96754218>You listed games I never heard aboutGood thing I never said that. I said you gave one game I've never heard about, and after learning about it, I see that it sucks and you're a retard.I'm actually pretty sure you've never played either game since you failed to post pdfs.>>96754243>I'm the troll that kept replying to himselfGood job on outing yourself I guess?>>96754233>Then prove it.Already did.>N-no I'll just say you didn'tDon't care, seethe nogames.
>>96754233>This is a game with dice involved, that means probabilities.Isn't poker a game with probabilities involved as well? Wouldn't that mean there's zero stakes in poker, going by your own argument?
>>96754243no you aren't lol
>>96754243>Have fun with your ultra-detailed game that is build under assumption that obtuse means complex and lots of rules means lethal combat.I don't think you've ever actually played an obtuse, rules heavy game. You've certainly never read or played Riddle games.
>>96740909This has been a continued problem in my attempts to expand upon it: Nothing really compares. Making a new magic system for the game either means it needs to be some spellsword stuff that just changes how fights play out a little bit, or it needs to be as good as the normal martial combat. Which isn't impossible, but instead, farworse: Very difficult and time consuming.Still, it's fun to tinker with games I enjoy, so I don't mind it that much.
>>96720687Why not put long point for chudan? It’s literally the same thing.
So, what makes The Riddle of Steel the greatest TTRPG ever designed? I never did get a response.Provide objective evidence of positive aspects the product has, that other TTRPGs don't have, to back up your claims, and make sure to be detailed and specific.
What makes it the annoying troll it is? Let's see ...-fixiates autistically and pointlessly on the hyperbole in the OP-ignores any answer as an arbitrarily defined non-answer-thinks a personal opinion needs to be a scientific paper-doesn't notice or care how many straw man arguments it uses -probably just waiting and not interested anyway
I love the character creation because you get mostly human parties with the priority distribution system. In order to play an elf or a wizard you have to have place your race as first priority which automatically limits you in other ways. You don't get the rainbow parties of other games with fantasy races and so being and elf or a dwarf feels special.
>>96757043Wrong. This would work better if you just randomly rolled for it.
>>96757048Assigning priorities in character creation and having to make sacrifices in one area to prioritize another would work better if it was randomly assigned? Are you quite literally retarded?
>>96757174>Assigning priorities in character creationBuildfaggotry for munchkins.If you want fantasy races to show up less in parties, just have race be randomly rolled for. The only reason you wouldn't see everyone playing an elf or a wizard is because the magic sucks and it's not the optimal build.
>>96757183So I have this idea for a dwarf, right? A character that I really want to play and that fits the campaign the DM has set up. Guess what? I rolled an elf, sucks to be me, I guess...Random character generation can be fun, but I hate with a passion any system that tries to force it on you.Having to prioritize certain character aspects can lead to minmaxxing, yes, but it can also translate into meaningful and fun choices for people. And let's face unless character generation is always 100% random (which needs a system and setting catering to that to be a good thing) someone who desperately wants to minmax is always going to find a way unless the DM just outright stops them (which they should if it bothers them).
>>96757197>So I have this idea for a dwarf, right?...You did this without reading the rulebook and seeing that you roll to determine things about your character?Yeah, really must be suck to be you, illiterate and retarded.
>>96757210Oh you were just baiting, sorry for taking you seriously. Here's a second (you) so you can feel good. Cherish it.
>>96757043I would argue you get less rainbow parties because not being human is suboptimal.
>>96757048No thanks. I like to have agency in the games I play.
>>96757275>I like to have agency in the games I play.Woah, what are you? Some kind of theater kid faggot? Only queers would ever want agency in their tabletop game. Now buckle in while I make you sit through my hour long cutscene with my GMPC as the star.
>>96757236Saying that mathematically making something guaranteed to happen is the best way to make it happen is "baiting" ok.
>>96757326My, you're a greedy one. Here's another (you).
>>96720541I prefer Dzikie Pola for my autistic weapon fighting game.
>>96757275Don't know why you had to reply to me again after making yourself look stupid, but you're proving my point that this is a game for minmaxing munchkins. It's a dice rolling game. Yet you hate rolling dice.
>>96757382I know people overuse this a lot but I'm seriously interested: are you autistic?
>>96757250Is it suboptimal? Is being a landed noble optimal? What about taking gifts or flaws? It's pretty obvious you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about so fuck off back to the the 5e general.
>>96757446>Are you autistic?>He asked with zero self awareness as he stans a shitty crunchfest game And let me guess, the first thing you thought to reply with is "W-well you didn't answer me directly so ur autistic".
>>96757464>Is it suboptimal?Yes.>Is being a landed noble optimal?No, you can get good gear without that.>[Gets mad because other people saw what was broken about the game immediately]Hahaha
>>96757482>No, you can get good gear without that. Yeah you just have to do Baal run for a weekend and you're pretty much geared for endgame.
>>96757464>Is it suboptimal?Yeah kind of. CP > Stats > Gifts/Boons > Social Class > Stuff > Racial bonuses from a purely mechanical standpoint.
>>96757476I'm not the guy you are arguing with just an observer and I was genuinely interested.
>>96757795I'm sure.
>>96757801I'm totally serious about this: if you are not just trolling and this is your real personality, and not just an internet personage, I wholeheartedly recommend you go see a therapist at some point. They can help you or help you find someone who can.
>>96757844>The samefag does his usual concern troll song and dance*Yawn.*
>>96757859>usualI know your first reaction to something like this is negative (this is pretty normal honestly) but if this is something that people "usually" throw at you, I sincerely hope you are least keep it in mind. Not going to detail this thread further now, so don't bother.
>>96757875>but if this is something that people "usually" throw at youYour reading comprehension remains poor, I see.
>retards>autists>trolls>autistic trolls>autistic retards unable to cope with other people enjoying different things>and a few people that actually wanna talk about the gameThis almost feels like two decades ago yes more like 17 years, before one of the autismos spergs out when I first learned about RoS on /tg/.Great game, has its flaws, still play it and enjoy it.
>>96742484>Song of SwordsThey never finished the game.>Sword and ScoundrelStill in a beta state last I checked.
>>96740672anyone have a link to SoS revised? want to check it out
>>96758762>They never finished the game.I thought it was released complete?
>>96759277Not worth it, it's just the same game made by power gamers for power gamers.
>>96759294It is more or less. It's only missing the magic system, which for a historical game is completely irrelevant.
>>96759570That can be fun in its own way. I'd at least be interested to see the direction they took what was otherwise a blatantly incomplete project.
>>96761245https://docs.google.com/document/d/17ZNDiv00hNqn3kw4IcgKyLk68DT7jducP7yNs-MuiKY/edit?usp=sharingUnless anon had a different version in mind, this is the only revised edition I'm aware of.
>>96761267Much appreciated. I'm mostly interested in how they changed the math or expanded (or added) systems.
>>96761286>they changed the math or expanded (or added) systems.That's kinda the thing, they didn't do much of that. Not significantly at least. The biggest thing they added was the "deterministic" combat system that just rewards being a munchkin.
>>96761286They didn't change anything, absolutely do NOT read it.
>>96761286You're wasting your time. They didn't change or add a single thing to it except more ways to optimize.
What makes it the annoying troll it is?Let's see ...• makes autistic and pointless hyperbole in the OP as a qualitative statement• responds to criticism of the qualitative statement with personal preference• thinks personal preferences are valid arguments in a discussion about observable qualities• doesn't notice or care how much it gaslights and deflects, as long as the opposition is attacked instead of the point being made
>>96763498>butthurt dndfag
I suppose it's a longshot asking in this thread, but I'm currently chewing on a way to make the shield coverage system in Song of Swords a bit more engaging. Instead of there just being an objective correct position to hold a shield, I want there to be more mindgames involved with bypassing the coverage; especially on smaller shields.
>>96764998What's your ideas on how to change it?I just changed the areas shields covered, so you'd always have weaknesses places that you can't protect by leaving the shield in one position. It doesn't fundamentally change anything really, though, it just makes them less random.
>>96765038One thing I got was allowing shields to change position at any time, instead of just at the beginning of a beat/move, then being able to switch again by paying for a quick defense. Which should theoretically encourage more feints. Beyond that, I'm thinking of some kind of option to allow quick defense to extend to any location that's not already covered at the cost of sacrificing regular coverage. The exact amount of coverage depends on shield size, so if you wanted to protect the lower leg with a buckler, you can but you could only select the thigh, knee or foot. Medium shields get two and large shields would get three (though it would be a bit irrelevant since they already cover so much)
>>96765062>One thing I got was allowing shields to change position at any time, instead of just at the beginning of a beat/move, then being able to switch again by paying for a quick defense. Which should theoretically encourage more feints.Why not just let it change when you declare your normal maneuver? I thought that was how it worked anyways.Not sure I like the Quick Defense thing. It basically means that if you don't have enough dice to feint more times than the opponent can quick defense, you're not going to hurt them.
>>96765142>Why not just let it change when you declare your normal maneuver? I thought that was how it worked anyways.That's more or less what I'm thinking of doing, vanilla RAW you can only do so at the beginning of the move/beat (so long as your shield is even capable of being used IE, not in a bind, grapple or having got hooked). The issue right now is it's a huge commitment to move your shield, since you can only do it at the beginning of a move and the benefits are usually zero. Since the enemy knows exactly where your shield is, and you often get significantly worse coverage if your shield is out of the "correct" position.>Not sure I like the Quick Defense thing. It basically means that if you don't have enough dice to feint more times than the opponent can quick defense, you're not going to hurt them.Probably, what I'm looking for is a way to make it so small shields offer their AV more often and make it so that there's more ways to bypass the coverage of larger shields.
>>96765363I'd consider looking at the revised rules in >>96761267The way shields are changed there is that Shield Bind gets slightly expanded upon, you can move shield position once at any time IF you have a talent for it, and their positions offer slightly better coverage (Like large shields in the low position covering the legs entirely instead of partially).This works pretty well in my experience, since it also changes target locations to head/chest/abdomen/arms/legs and more fairly weights certain parts of the body or gives bonuses to the defender for attacking them.As far as the small shields go, letting Quick Defense increase the places you cover could work. I honestly don't think it's needed though. Shields in general are good because they give you passive defense and a solid TN. Small shields, like the buckler, are great because they give you an amazing block TN and are usually good for shield bashing too. The only shields that kinda suck are medium shields, but that's only in comparison to how good large and small shields are.
>>96769031>Shields in general are good because they give you passive defense and a solid TN. Small shields, like the buckler, are great because they give you an amazing block TN and are usually good for shield bashing too. The only shields that kinda suck are medium shields, but that's only in comparison to how good large and small shields are.While I think shields are good in a pure mechanical sense, I think it's not great design that shields are so static with a singular "correct" way to use them. I very strongly disagree with medium shields sucking as well. In the low position they cover you chest to thigh, while your head, your weapon arm and shoulder are uncovered, along with the lower part of your legs; those are some of the easiest and cheapest locations to get a lot of armor on, especially when you can halve the price for only putting it on a single arm. Small shields on the other hand are solely block devices, which I'm not a fan of since they might as well not offer AV with how little they leave covered up, with no way to expand the cover. The buckler is the only small shield that's worth it because it covers both arms in their entirety. The only shield type I'd arguably want to increase coverage on are small shields. If anything I'd want to reduce coverage for medium+large so there's more incentive to move the things around, and more room for an opponent to feint into uncovered areas.
