The Riddle of Steel

[Marras]

I found my copy of TRoS yesterday! You can say that finding it was almost like a treasure hunt [emoji1]

The reason I bring this up is how much of a headstart I will get by getting myself familiar with that game while waiting for the beta rules of Bastards?

[hector]

It might help you to remember good melee tactics (since what works in a fight typically works in a TRoS fight), but I suspect there will be a fair few changes...

[Agamemnon]

Thats a tricky one. In spirit, a lot of things have a very similar feel. Part of the goal when developing Band of Bastards was to deconstruct the elements that made TROS feel like TROS, and try to build something that captured our favorites parts, while building our own system around it. Certain sections have a similar process to TROS - melee combat and wounds come to mind - but the individual mechanics of these are fairly different.

Personally, I still love TROS as a game and I would recommend it to anyone who gets into that kind of thing. It might also give you some insight as to where our own design process started and the frame of reference we began with (other good games for that: Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Poisn'd, Runequest..) but insofar as using it as a tool to learn or prepare for the mechanics of Band of Bastards? It probably won't be that helpful. Still fun though.

[Marras]

OK, thanks Agamemnon!

[Korbel]

Necromantic ritual to ask my nooby questions about TROS!
(as I said earlier, it's hard to call me a veteran)

1. Why was actually a Combat Round divided into two Exchanges? And not, say, three?

2. I know it should not happen in a player-driven story (so it's entirely an abstract question), but how would you play a situation, where a PC is fighting for his life - but no SA is applicable at the moment? His capabilities are surely higher than normal - how to model this?
Or an NPC, who fights desperately for his life?

It was probably explained somewhere through all this years, but you know - I discovered TROS not really long time ago (I'm far, far behind most - if not all - of you). Never used TROS forum and it's hard for me to find the answers.

[hector]

1: Probably because if whoever is defending on the first exchange defends successfully, each combatant gets to attack once per round; much as in most other games. Don't quote me on that though.

2: As you said, it really shouldn't happen. If it somehow does, then the way it gets modelled using Rules as Written is that you just don't get your SA's - it's as simple as that. SA's are a narrative mechanic, justified by people fighting harder for what they believe in, but ultimately intended to reward players for taking risks that move the story forward. The only time a PC should be fighting for their lives is when it makes the game more interesting - and anything that's making the game more interesting should be firing at least one of their SA's.

A random attack on the way to the tavern doesn't make the game more interesting - a random attack when taking a short cut through back alleys because you need to get to the palace by dawn to save your lover's life does.

[higgins]

1. Why was actually a Combat Round divided into two Exchanges? And not, say, three?

The divided dice pool mechanic models the ebb and flow of a fight. To put it simply -- the more effort you put into an attack or defense, the harder is is to perform the subsequent action, as you're still recovering, shifting back from the previous commitment, etc (you could even be out of balance). The same holds true for the other way around... if you are able to defend a blow with minimal effort, you don't need to move much from your guard position, which is a familiar posture for launching practiced and powerful strikes.

2. I know it should not happen in a player-driven story (so it's entirely an abstract question), but how would you play a situation, where a PC is fighting for his life - but no SA is applicable at the moment? His capabilities are surely higher than normal - how to model this?
Or an NPC, who fights desperately for his life?

There's two main approaches to this.

The first is to say that the game isn't modelling reality, but fiction. And indeed, in fiction such a situation shouldn't take place. The character gains nothing from risking their life and engaging these anonymous foes. They should extract themselves from the situation with as little risk as possible.

The other is to say that the game DOES model reality, and the SAs represent the nigh-supernatural will that the story's larger-than-life protagonists have. But even in this case, the above holds true. The character gains nothing from risking their life and engaging these anonymous foes. They should extract themselves from the situation with as little risk as possible.

Sorry if I read too much into this, but I think your real question is:

"How can this game model reality if I were to remove the larger-than-life SA quality from it?"

The simple answer is that it can't. Neither TROS nor 'Bastards have any built-in provision for it. Please keep in mind though that this isn't because we don't view modelling the reality as a noble goal. If we didn't, we wouldn't be writing 'Bastards right now. Modelling reality is, however, a secondary goal.

When I first found TROS, I found such stance confusing, as I wanted the game to model reality as well, but then I grew to understand, that the SAs were far more than simply character's motivation and willpower. They are the tool to dictate the direction of the whole game, which makes them the most powerful mechanic in the whole game, by far.

As my friend Ian used to say: "Players come for the combat but stay for the SAs."

Now, he would really be the perfect guy to explain it the best, but since he is no longer with us, I will quote him verbatim.

In a single stroke the SA system:

• Provides a mechanism that allows the players to tell the referee what they want the game to be about right now,
• Provides the referee with a guarantee that if a scenario is built around the player's SAs that they will want to play it,
• Provides the referee with a mechanism for rewarding players who actively participate in the game,
• Provides the players with a guarantee that if they follow the plots that they asked for their characters will perform better and their characters will develop.

No more does the referee create a scenario from a blank canvas and hope that it will interest the players. No more do the players find themselves stuck at the table mind-numbingly bored playing a game that isn't about the referee's interests. No more do the players find that certain character races/professions/whatever perform better in the game and develop quicker.

The SA mechanic provides a neat closed-loop reward mechanic. The player states what they want the game to be about. The referee builds a scenario around that. The players participate, which pleases the referee. The referee rewards those players who participate with extra SA points, making their characters perform better. The players are happy; the game interests them and their character is developing. It is such an elegant system.

[Korbel]

1. But do you know why Rounds were divided into exactly two Exchanges?

2. Remove SAs? Not in my life! As I said, completely abstract question. Experiment of thoughts.

[higgins]

1. But do you know why Rounds were divided into exactly two Exchanges?

As I said, action/recovery is my take on it. Plus mechanically speaking, if you add more than two then you'll get a greater chance of snowballing.

[Agamemnon]

1. But do you know why Rounds were divided into exactly two Exchanges?

As I said, action/recovery is my take on it. Plus mechanically speaking, if you add more than two then you'll get a greater chance of snowballing.

Yeah, almost entirely this. Action/Recover is one way of phrasing it. Action, reaction is another way to look at it. You make your play, and there's a follow-up of it. If you watch HEMA fights, you'll see a lot of this. There will be a lot of pacing, circling..and then a rapid exchange of blows.. and then they separate again and reposition.

There are exactly two because in one way or another, there had to be exactly some number.. so it might as well be two. From a more mechanical standpoint, budgeting CP across more than two rounds really messes up the mechanic. It becomes way for one party to unbalance one tempo over another, and harder to respond to that imbalance. Two tempo rounds make for a far smoother experience.

[Korbel]

That's what I suspected: a number other than one was needed and the simplest, most reasonable choice was... two. Just that.
But I wanted to make sure if there's no hidden knowledge behind this. Maybe two "exchanges" between short pauses and recoveries is what usually happens in a real fight? That's the natural tempo? I don't know, never fought with a sword, so was curious thanks for replies!

[Agamemnon]

That's what I suspected: a number other than one was needed and the simplest, most reasonable choice was... two. Just that.
But I wanted to make sure if there's no hidden knowledge behind this. Maybe two "exchanges" between short pauses and recoveries is what usually happens in a real fight? That's the natural tempo? I don't know, never fought with a sword, so was curious thanks for replies!

I think it's a little bit of A, a little bit of B, honestly. If you watch HEMA sparing or the like, there's very definitely a pattern of circling, clashing, and then circling again.. and the clash is usually an extremely short exchange of blows. You also have some discussion among hema-types of "single tempo" actions versus "Two-tempo" actions, which plays into it as well.

[higgins]

I think it's a little bit of A, a little bit of B, honestly.

I think what you really meant was...