>Why don't we do to Riddle of Steel what Pathfinder did to 3.5e?

What, trying to cure mental retardation by sewing on another retarded head?

>>16464375
Not at all. We hone it. Perfect it. Balance it. Trim away the god-awful parts of the system and make it more playable.

Three biggest gripes with this game:

1. The skill system is shit. Shit, shit, shit, shit, shit. It looked alright in the demonstration threads, but if you look at the probabilities, they're fucked up.
2. Group combat is clunky and almost undoable.
3. "Hey guys, is it okay if I want to play an archer to back up you melee guys from afar?"

>>16464428
Then let's mix in the combat movement and ranged attacks from the D20 system, they seem fairly solid. It'd take some buggering about to get everything to work, of course. Maybe ranged units can only attack once per round?

As for skills, a classless system seems to be most popular. Any suggestions?

>>16464401
>We hone it. Perfect it. Balance it. Trim away the god-awful parts of the system and make it more playable.
>Implying pathfinder did any of these things

>>16464455
3.5e was screaming for a fix-up. Pathfinder was that fix-up. May not have been as major as what RoS needs, but it was still a fix-up.

Besides, this thread isn't about Pathfinder hate. Or edition wars.

>what Pathfinder did to 3.5e?
Like a polishing a turd?

>Why don't we do to Riddle of Steel what Pathfinder did to 3.5e? Obviously, this means making some marginal changes to the system.
FTFY.

Seriously: if you think Pathfinder is "honed, perfected, balanced" and "has the god-awful parts of the system trimmed away" compared to 3.5e, you are in no fucking position to be doing any kind of game design work at all.

>>16464313
Ictualy i had same idea. RIddle of Steels looks like a very interested system, but should be rebalanced. Like groinshots and gender problems are toned down.

>>16464476
>Besides, this thread isn't about Pathfinder hate. Or edition wars.
Protip: then you shouldn't have mentioned it in your opening post.

Dicks almighty, I did choose a terrible analogue, didn't I? If we can't dedicate this thread to Riddle of Steel, then I'll just have to try again in a few hours without any mention of The System That Shall Not Be Named.

1) The ranged weapons rules in the core book are pretty horrible, but the FoB rules are fine. Most people dislike them because they're realistic - they're useful in volleys, but when you have a small group of people fighting another small group, bows aren't that great - they'll only get 1 or 2 shots off before someone engages you in melee, thus making it a terrible idea to specialize in them... Just like in RL. You could "balance" them to appease people who want to play archers, but doing so will undermine the realism. The way you're supposed to use ranged weapons in RoS is for everyone to have a point or two in one, and then you fire off a few volleys to "soften up" an enemy target. They're really great in ambushes.

2) It's true that group combat is clunky, and I don't know what the solution is to change that. I've heard that the Burning Wheel system fixes it, but I haven't played BW so I can't say for sure.

3) The only thing RoS's skill system needs is for someone to straighten out the weird "chance of success" curve, which skyrockets at too low a level. Someone with some knowledge of probabilities could easily fix that - I suspect the easiest way would be to start requiring more than one successes, but I'd need to make some sort of excel spreadsheet working out the chances of success with X many dice and Y high a TN to be sure, and I'm far too lazy to do that.

>>16464444 Then let's mix in the combat movement and ranged attacks from the D20 system

Oh christ, I hope that was a joke.

>>16464497 groinshots and gender problems are toned down

Those're fine in play, in my experience. Women don't have to worry about dickstabs, men get a weight advantage, which helps in a grapple.

Despite the meme about dickstabbing, it's usually not the best attack to make, anyway. Groins are easy to armor.

>>16464596

>Only thing RoS's skill system needs is for someone to straighten out the weird "chance of success" curve

I had participated in a thread on this earlier, using the TNs for attribute checks made against poison as a benchmark.

http://archive.easymodo.net/tg/thread/16114583#p16118708

The solution is to use the success-based rules for skill checks in Companion, under the following conversion guidelines.

Original TN 1-2: You shouldn't even bother rolling for this. Foolproof.
Original TN 3-4: Difficulty 1. Easy, simple.
Original TN 5-6: Difficulty 2. Average, default.
Original TN 7-8: Difficulty 3. Challenging, tricky.
Original TN 9-10: Difficulty 4. Difficult.
Original TN 11-12: Difficulty 5. Very difficult, hard.
Original TN 13-14: Difficulty 6. Extremely hard, amazing.
Original TN 15-16: Difficulty 7. Lunatic mode, unknown mode, heroic.

Under the Companion rules, you've got your average guy with Health 4 rolling at TN 6 against arsenic, hemlock, and ricin, requiring three successes and having only a 31.3% chance of success.

Meanwhile, a paragon of health who's literally healthier than a horse (destrier and courser, Of Beasts of Men, pp36-37), boasting a huge Health of 7, has a 77.3% chance of shrugging off arsenic, hemlock, or ricin.

46% difference right there.

Now let's compare that to the original system, where arsenic, hemlock, and ricin demand only a Health roll against TN 8. Mr. Average with Health 4 has a 76% chance of beating that, while Mr. Healthier Than A Battle Horse has a 91.8% chance of beating that.

That's a shameful 15.8% difference.

Didn't someone pretty much do this?

>>16464428
>3. "Hey guys, is it okay if I want to play an archer to back up you melee guys from afar?"
This was me in my first RoS game.

>>16464724

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand - you translate a difficult TN into a need to get so many successes, but then what's the TN you roll against?

There was plans to do something like this, I think I read aboout it in one of the past threads.

IIRC, we were waiting for Scannon's clean pdf version of the core book.

>>16464776

Companion outlines that attribute rolls should always be made against TN 6, while skill rolls use the TNs one has for a given packet. Companion also revises skill packets almost entirely, making it an overhaul of the skill system.

I do believe that the rules for Blood Loss, Knockdown, and Knockout should be exceptions to this overhaul of the system for attribute rolls and skill rolls, however.

>>16464596
>The ranged weapons rules in the core book are pretty horrible, but the FoB rules are fine

OK, that right there is something that needs fixing - currently the rules are smeared across four goddamn books with rules from some books contradicting rules from other books.

An updated version of the core book with all the rule changes from the later books would be invaluable.

I wanted to play a mix of 3.5 and Riddle of steel. #.5 for the monsters, feats and classes, and RoS for the combat rules.

Someone pointed me to something called Codex Martialis, a system of riddle-like combat based on d20. It might help you, it's on /rs/. There's also a forum for it somewhere.

>>16464799

Ahh, I get it now.

Yes, your way of doing it is great - it fixes the problem with skill checks, and by keeping the TN of the skill (instead of adding modifiers), you've actually made it simpler than the core system.

Riddle of Steel lacks a technology level or time period system to harmonize the encounters, and extensive rules for firearms. I think GURPS can provide all this with little conversion, if someone's ready to do it.

Wow, I leave my thread and find all this? Thanks for recovering what I thought was a lost cause!

Truly, there is hope.

>>16464840 I wanted to play a mix of 3.5 and Riddle of steel.
>>16464871 I think GURPS can provide all this with little conversion

I know you guys have your favorite system, and that's great - both of those are fine games. But we're trying to fix the problems in RoS, not merge it with another system. I don't think adding in classes or adding in GURPS's firarms rules would really fix the issues with RoS, which mostly have to do with rules needing to be streamlined.

Heck, one big pro for Riddle of Steel is that it's managed to make a classless game that is nonetheless quite balanced, and its firearms rules adequately cover everything up to the start of the 19th century.

The real question is - Do we strive for realism in streamlining the game, or do we abstract it to some extent? As much as I would love to include all the optional armour rules in Flower of Battle, there's a lot of bookkeeping involved.

>>16464948
>its firearms rules adequately cover everything up to the start of the 19th century.
It does ? Where are those rules ? I only found stats for a generic musket and pistol in flower of battle... That's why I found them lacking and suggesting to adapt rules from GURPS in.

That said, the RoS rules are lacking in a few other places, magic in particular. Using adapted rules from other games can fix these issues, even without going to the point of merging the two games.

>>16465011
I mean, after all the problem of Pathfinder was that streamlining isn't always sufficient.

>>16465001
I'd favor realism. That's the point of this game.

>>16464724
>>16464799

Example scenario:

Fon Master Ion has been called in to a royal court to help soothe rapidly growing tensions between two nations.

By the time he arrives, the court is in social disrepair: open insults regarding honor and ancestry are being hurled about, the warriors present have their hands on their swords, and everyone has an air of obstinateness and indignation surrounding them. Why, they are even ignoring him, despite his position as a renowned mediator and clergyman.

He heads to a wooden pedestal, brings down his open hand against it to gather the attention of those in the court, and plants his staff firmly on the ground.

His player announces that he would like to loose a profound quotation of scripture to scold those present (he knows them to be religious), and will then begin to mediate by analyzing the political situation, pointing out flaws in logic, and offering compromises.

The Seneschal announces that two rolls are required for that: MA/Theology to recall just the right verse and deliver it in just the right way, at Difficulty 4 (difficult), because despite the religiousness of the courtiers, they are being blinded by anger. The second roll is Wit/Diplomacy to properly gauge the situation and propose solutions, at Difficulty 5 (very difficult, hard) because of how chaotic and nearly unsalvageable things are.

Any lesser man would surely fail such rolls, but Ion is no ordinary boy. He has MA 6 and Theology TN 4 (Master) for the first roll, and Wit 7 and Diplomacy TN 4 (Master) for the second roll.

For the sake of ease of example, spiritual attributes will be ignored, although it is safe to say that Ion here has a Drive to promote peace and maintain friendships between all.

(Continued)

>>16465011
>It does ? Where are those rules ? I only found stats for a generic musket and pistol in flower of battle... That's why I found them lacking and suggesting to adapt rules from GURPS in

It has stats for matchlock, wheellock and flintlock types of pistols, muskets and blunderbusses, plus mines and grenades. That's enough for the vast majority of players. Adding in GURPS's firearms rules would just add needless complexity.

>>16465137

MA 6, Theology TN 4 (Master) vs. Difficulty 4 (difficult) = 74.4% chance of success.

Ion's player rolls and achieves 5 successes. The Seneschal checks the table on page 34 of Companion and sees that 1 extra success means "The check is successful but with a little extra flair." Ion manages to recite the proper verse to calm down the crowd of courtiers and make them reconsider their thoughts, and they take notice of his composure and wisdom as he does so.

Ion's player manages to roleplay this with flair himself. The Seneschal keeps this and the extra success in mind, and decides to give Ion's player an ad hoc +1 die to his next roll.

Wit 7 (+1 bonus die), Diplomacy TN 4 (Master) vs. Difficulty 5 (very difficult, hard) = 80.6% chance of success.

Ion's player rolls and achieves an astounding 8 successes. (There was a 5.8% chance of that happening, for those curious.) The Seneschal checks the table and sees that 3 extra successes mean "The check is exceptionally successful, impressing onlookers."

Ion has successfully managed to gauge the situation in the court, offer solutions and compromises, and mediate. All present in the hall are quite astounded by his practicality, common sense, and insight. They consider themselves foolish, and profess their respect for him.

I have no idea how I would have managed "difficulty" like this under the default system.

>>16465265
That's... That's actually very clever. Well done, sir. We now have our new-and-improved skill system.

Huh. OK: skill system is fixed.

Next item on the agenda is group combat; anyone got any ideas on how to improve it?

>>16465342
Isn't there a move stat? Why don't we make that equal to some measure of distance and players move their characters around by inches or whatever? Warhams-style. That way we can include rules for flanking and so on. Give longer-reach weapons the ability to strike over a measurable distance.

>>16465303

Do not thank me, but the Companion book for presenting the repaired skill system.

>>16465137

>For the sake of ease of example, spiritual attributes will be ignored, although it is safe to say that Ion here has a Drive to promote peace and maintain friendships between all.

About spiritual attributes, I have always considered them a half-hearted version of FATE's aspects.

Yes, aspects are unrealistic, narrativist, and cinematic. However, a Destiny spiritual attribute of "It is written in the Score that you kill this king and take the throne, so you gain bonuses while fighting the monarch and his guards" is unrealistic too, no matter how one spins it.

Aspects handle what spiritual attributes set out to do, only more intuitively and in a more fun way. If there is the time, I would think that replacing spiritual attributes with FATE's aspects would make for a better Riddle of Steel experience.

Ok, before I start Id like to say that Im currently running a RoS campaign for four people and theyre loving it. Id also like to say that the overhaul of the skill system as presented in this thread is a good thing and I'll probably be using it.

But RoS isnt a DnD type game and its not meant to be. If you want gritty combat in a fantasy setting with all the trimmings of a comprehensive, reasonably well balanced system then use Warhammer Fantasy. If you just want to roll some dice and have a load of fun with some wild characters then go with DnD (In my experience at least).

Riddle of Steel is an awesome combat system with some other stuff thrown in. Personally I can be arsed to learn the magic rules and neither can my players, so its not in our games. We homebrew any magic that occurs. But the game is primarily based around the combat. This works for me and my group, not because we do dungeon crawls, but for the exact opposite reason. A ton of roleplaying goes on and combat is usually rather uncommon, but when it occurs its deadly and nerve wracking for them as players and me as a DM.

>>16465453
>aspects are unrealistic, narrativist, and cinematic
That's exactly the point of SA as well, to give PCs a little extra flair and boost their chances of winning. I mean, what's the point if the protagonist is a regular schmuck?

>>16465502
We fudge and wandwave a ton of stuff. If someone gives an awesome speech I sometimes dont even make them roll for it. But, that's just me as a DM. By all means overhaul and streamline RoS, it could use it. But keep in mind that the game is a combat simulator at heart, an out of print combat simulator at that. So it will never have the huge number of splatbooks which acompany most modren games and give the DM the tools to accurately simulate the cattle economy or elven stool crafstmen or whatever. It's suited to a certain type of game and it does it well. So I think we should work on improving that rather than trying to twist it into something the system was never meant to do.

Just my two cents.

>>16465453
>aspects are unrealistic, narrativist, and cinematic
That's exactly the point of SA as well, to give PCs a little extra flair and boost their chances of winning. I mean, what's the point if the protagonist is a regular schmuck?

>>16465453
> If there is the time, I would think that replacing spiritual attributes with FATE's aspects would make for a better Riddle of Steel experience.

Please don't do this. The SA system works great at the moment - it fosters roleplaying by giving the GM a way to reward good RPing, it ties achieving a PC's goals to his character advancement in a way that works amazingly well (indeed, how would character advancement work if you took it out?), it makes PCs less likely to be taken out by one unlucky roll (a good thing in such a lethal system)... SAs are one of the best things RoS has going for it.

F.A.T.E's Aspects cannot replace Spiritual Attributes without making massive (and IMHO, terrible) changes to the way RoS works. I very much doubt Aspects would even work at all outside of a rules-light system.

>>16465581
> I very much doubt Aspects would even work at all outside of a rules-light system.

To expand on this: Aspects cover a lot of the sort of things that are already covered in RoS by other stuff - if you want your character to be an alcoholic, is that an Aspect or a Flaw? If you want him to have been trained by the greatest swordmaster in the land, is that represented by an Aspect or a School? Even if you somehow manage to strip out SAs, you'd still have to deal with these sorts of messy conflicts.

There is no way this wouldn't be an utter clusterfuck.

Huh I'm going to have to download some of the supplements and give them a read. I have an actual copy of the book itself so I'll go fetch that so I can participate.

My 2 cents. Keep in mind I've read the core but never had a chance to run/play the system.
-The magic system is not un-salvageable. It in fact a very interesting take on things. It doesn't try to balance magic at all. Instead the system intends for roleplaying and smart NPCs/PCs to balance the system. If someone is a powerful mage they have powerful enemies as it where. I'd really rather see a crunchy go through of the magic rules before chucking it....
-Due to the realistic approach more of the system is balanced then you'd think. A dagger may be an impractical weapon on the battlefield but it can easily be the weapon that gets you a kill...assuming you get someone when they are unarmored and by surprise...Maintaining this relationship with realism is important.

-The book has always had an issue with too much flipping back and forth to get the important stuff. A clear and easy "Cliff notes" for the assorted tables and such would make the entire game much easier to run/play/learn.

-The setting itself was intended to allow a great deal of "Create it yourself" for the Seneschal. More of it may warrant chucking then not but I have to ask. What is the default presentation of society by the book? Are we going to offer any help on deciding the nations involved?

>>16466029

The supplements do fix a lot of problems the core book had, though annoyingly their fixes aren't in one place, but spread across them. I'd really like an updated book with all the combat rules in one place.

Anyhoo, I don't think we need to worry about the setting - most RoS games seem to be set in either a historical setting or a homebrewed setting, I don't know anyone who's actually run a game in Weyrth.

OP are you a stupid?

Pathfinder didn't fix shit and casters got STRONGER

>>16466723
Heh.

Bump with alleyway, for shit potentially getting done, and for news about scannon's pdf.

More alleyways.

Makes me want to adventure.

That's it for now.

I think Scanon was talking about something similar to this in one of Galt's threads a while back.

I've been taking material from Scanon's PDF and putting it in a wiki at http://knight.burrowowl.net/ for use in an eventual low-to-no-magic game I'd noodling around with. I hadn't quite gotten around to grokking the skill system changes in the Companion. Thank you for the clarification, Ionanon.

I gotta get back to work on that thing...

>>16467750
>>16467750
I''m certain that's in Portugal.

>>16470476

Oh shit, a RoS wiki! Very nice!

Any chance you could open it up to public edits, like a proper wiki?

>>16471326
The "rules" namespace is open. I just edited the rules page anonymously to make sure.

I made this thread before I went to sleep. It is still here. This is definitely a good omen.

Anyway, it seems to be all RoS really needs is a clearer resource to present the rules, rather than have them scattered haphazardly over three or four rulebooks. There isn't much that can really be fixed as such. Character generation is much easier with the points allocation system in the Companion, so we should use that.

One thing I was thinking was if we remove the RoS lore from the rules. Cut out the magic system and the different races entirely and keep things as a generic low-fantasy system.

But yes, the big thing is we need to create some kind of book-like thing for people to download. This new wiki may be just the ticket.

>>16471524

I am supportive of your proposals. For my personal purposes human-only no-spellcasting is the preferred setup.

Originally I put up the wiki just to make it easier to crossreference maneuvers and proficiencies.

We probably shouldn't change the combat system. It's clunky and such, but most everything in there is that way for a reason.

Everything else is pretty much open season though.

>>16471913
I agree. We do need to think of something for the group combat though. Maybe if we use the combat pool as a sort of initiative system, and players take turns round-by-round. The problem with that is it wouldn't allow for people to butt into somebody else's fight between exchanges, which would I would like to do.

>>16471913
The skills need some polish (how many "convince somebody" skill do we need, exactly?), but the basic system is reasonable.

The benefits of social class needs work. Obviously this is something that can be highly setting-specific, but a little bit of starting money isn't much of a leg up when it can come at the cost of attributes, proficiencies, and such.

Working out how to handle fights with more than one combatant on each side (but not a mass battle) would be good, but I suspect the proper solution here is to put some polish on the terrain roll mechanic

>>16472026
Let's combine Diplomacy, Sincerity, Seduction, Persuasion, Orate, and whatever else there is into a generic Tonguecraft skill.

>>16472004
What about additional 'group maneuvers'? I have no idea what RoS's current mass combat system looks like, but maybe having it work like regular combat, with each side declaring a maneuver, then falling into smaller subdivisions of combat (1 on 1 fights etc) could work.

>>16472215
Also, individual maneuvers could be added which could allow someone to interfere in a combat they are not directly engaged in, by harrying a foe or whatever.

>>16471524 Character generation is much easier with the points allocation system in the Companion, so we should use that.

Ergh, no. The problem with a generic point buy system (like that presented in the companion) is that it encourages minmaxing. The nice thing about the default system is that it tends to produce realistic characters, rather than pure combat monsters/diplomancers/whatever clever build you've thought up that breaks the game.

>>16472442
Agreed.

>>16472215
Good thinking. Here's an idea.

Before combat opens, terrain rolls are made, going from the fastest character to the slowest. (How can we decide "fastness"?) These terrain rolls represent shuffling around, aggressively gesturing towards one another and generally signifying that shit is about to go down. This is to decide the match-ups for the oncoming brawl.

Once every character is accounted for, the terrain rolls stop. This may mean that not every character is rolled for. If they've been terrain-rolled into a fight, they're stuck in it. Some characters may end up having to fight multiple enemies simultaneously.

Combat goes as normal, swapping between 1v1 fights round-by-round. In the case of a single character being attacked by two or three bad dudes, they can perform multiple defenses each exchange, but only one attack. This means that one character would be pretty much stuck in the defensive, unable to get a shot in. Pretty realistic, I'd say.

>>16472442
I'd agree, but RoS isn't really the sort of system that leaves much room for minmaxing.

>>16472514
I have a problem with the standard chargen: look at how much the priorities would cost in the point system, it's skewed.
Attributes (already one of the most important priorities, since it decides your dice pool) gains more than the others.
And, until there is a magic system that can be constantly and gainfully used by players, the Race priority might as well not be there.
If point buy brings optimization, skewed priorities will give us cookie cutters.

>>16472620
>I have a problem with the standard chargen: look at how much the priorities would cost in the point system, it's skewed.

So we rebalance it, that shouldn't be too hard. It's a better solution than dumping it for point-buy.

>>16472576
I'd love to see skill come into this somehow. Perhaps a miniaturized version of the Battle system, whereby Leadership, Battle, and Tactics can play into the terrain rolls to establish an advantage for one side or the other right before initiative is determined.

>>16472668
If we were to rebalance it to be generic, we'd remove the Race option. Rank everything from A-E. Then we'd change the Social option from a slider of how wealthy you are to a slider of how much wealth your character has. The GM can fluff in the character's societal standing.

Adding on to the 'group maneuver' concept, perhaps some sort of leadership or discipline system might be appropriate to reflect the chaotic nature of combat?

>>16472668
>>16472695
for what it's worth, I tried to overhaul the priorities/races/magic, and to streamline the schools (that ended up being 'everyone is in a school', with the paesant's advantage being missile combat - I don't like it, but I don't like mixing school and direct proficency advances, either)

>>16472695
But a significant balancing factor of the social status is who can use armor.

>>16472768
"who can wear armor" strikes me as bullshit. It's more like "who can bear weapons" if anything. "Weapons" would have specific legal meanings in various places, of course

>>16472676
How about, instead of combat being opened by a horde of people rolling, if one side has a character with the Battle skill (Or leadership, or tactics, or one of the other half a dozen related skills), then he can make one simple skill check. For every success he has, he can order one character from the party into a match-up.

Party is going for a drunken wander around Venice at night when three brigands jump from around a corner.

Ordinarily, the fastest one present, Brigand McStiletto would make a terrain roll and pick out one of the players to fight with and so on and so forth.

But if one of the PCs has the relevant skill, he can make one roll, get five successes, and say "Apothecary! Fight that guy! Rogue and travelling pilgrim with long stick! Gang up on him! Me and the halberdier are going for the big one!"

Things would get interesting if both sides have Leadership, though. Contested rolls?

>>16472768
I'd say wealth is a pretty decent balancing factor of who can wear armour. I'd like for whatever system we come up with to be equally applicable for a PC group of landsknechts, or for an epic Conan-style adventure. This means more clearly separating the rules from things so the GM can create their own world.

>>16472783
What, you think forbidding peasants from wearing metal armor doesn't make sense? Seems sensible to me.

>>16472768
>>16472783
that can be achived by giving 2 'starting gold' values: one to spend on weapons and armor, and one for other amenities.
because even a paesant murder-hobo can be pretty well armed (and armored), just by costs.

>>16472795
IIRC, a starting player can easily afford a suit of full plate so long as they choose D or above or something like that.

>>16472856
They're gonna need it.

>>16472795
there are already possible tactics, using the CP for the terrain roll to gang up on one enemy, while some other pcs fends off the rest.

>>16472795
using the battle skill seems like a good idea.

And no, not contested leadership. If they're given orders that conflict with the other side, it ought to be the player who's trying to execute the order vs the person who's trying to interrupt that order.

>>16472877
Contested tactics rolls to see who has the better plan. Battle rolls to see who can exercise their plans better. Leadership rolls to assist one or the other.

>>16472902
But what if the brigands from our example the PC both have the relevant skills? Who would decide the shape of the battle? I guess it would be whoever has the advantage of surprise.

>>16472902
>Contested tactics rolls to see who has the better plan
That level of abstraction doesn't quite seem appropriate to RoS, unless you're going to introduce it as a part of a maneuver system.

those are all mass combat rules. used to highlight the pc role in a fight between armies.
using them in a skirmish sounds like a bad idea (highlighting some pcs... over other pcs)

>>16472920
Considering how abstract the terrain roll system is, I respectfully disagree.

I'm thinking the benefit of this tactical contest as being a limiter on the initial terrain rolls. A good tactician with good leadership and disciplined men doesn't get his boys picked apart by the wolfpack.

As I see it what the two things that need a solid mechanism are determining who ends up fighting who (pairing off or ganging up) and in what manner is initiative divided. I do not profess to have a ready, complete answer to either.

>>16472975
This is why I suggested a more D&D-style movement system for combat. That got a pretty aggressive response, and I can kind of see why. It would be changing a pretty big part of the game.

I'd say either an assload of terrain rolls, or a party leader bossing people around would work acceptably.

>>16473029
just make sure both methods drain the pc's CPs, or the 'multiple, weaker enemies' ploy will soon lose its luster.

Hey guys. It's Scannon.
You want proof? You want me to start using some kind of faggy tripfaggotry? I'll go stab you all in the dicks. That's proof enough.

Truth be told, for the last couple of weeks I haven't had a lot of time to sit at my desk and fuck about in photoshop for hours on end. I've had some spare time, but it's been spent on hookers and blow. Sorry! This is why I've been releasing as much of the material as possible as I go - the origional scans and the WIP .pdfs should all be out there on the tubes somewhere incase I get knocked down by a rampaging bear-with-a-halberd tomorrow.

I've got to head out soon to see the missus soon. I'll have a look a go at cleaning up the remaining scans if I don't stay at her place tonight. Sorry, but boobs get priority over tRoS.

As for The Riddle of Steal 2.0, my roadmap at the moment is something like:
1. Get out a fascimile .pdf of the The Riddle of Steal Core Rulebook.
2. Wait to see what you anons get up to - Burrowowl is being really encouraging here.
3. ???
4. Profit.

Now, let me boot up my monolithic desktop and find out how much progress had been made before I became distracted.

>>16473921 The Riddle of Steal 2.0

You were just going to do a rules compendium, yes? no plans of overhauling the entire system?

TBH, I think that's probably best. Going by this thread, any group attempt to "fix" the system is going to devolve into an argument over which parts of it need fixing and which are perfectly fine.

>>16473941
that's why projects benefit from some direction/editorial fiat. When nobody is in a position to say "this is good enough, leave it alone, move on" then arguments can just chase their own tails perpetually.

>We seem to know our shit.

>We seem to know our shit.
Isthisniggaserious.jpg

alrighty, diving back into rules modification/clarification bickering:

As I see in, having a "party" of player characters confronted by a number of opponent,s let's say three PCs confronted by 5 brigands, presents a couple of fundamental challenges in the RoS system as presented.

If the participants basically 'pair off' and two of the PCs are stuck with having to fight two bandits each, how does a single PC gain and keep initiative over his two opponents? If one bandit throw red and the other throws white, the PC goes white and... One bandit has initiative, the PC is on the defensive, and the second bandit is... Unengaged? Also has the initiative? Is is necessary for the PC to successfully block/parry an attack from both bandits to get the initiative against both? Can he win the initiative back from just one? Can one of the bandits switch to attacking a different PC if his buddy seems to have this guy pretty well in-hand?

If one of the combatants in a multi-fighter melee successfully uses a Full Evasion maneuver, a pause between him and his opponent occurs. If this was during the fist exchange of a round and the evaded opponent still had dice left in his CP, can he opt to attack somebody else or are they simply lost?

These are the kinds of things that I'm not sure simply compiling the published rules will straighten out.

>>16473921
You HAD to come along, didn't you?! This thread is so determined not to die it's most assuredly some kind of undead horror.

Anyway, thanks for undertaking such a huge task. Even if you don't manage to stick it out, it's nice to have people on-board.

>>16473941
Yeah, if this thread has shown us anything it's that we can't fix what's broken if we can't decide what's broken. But a clear presentation of all the rules from all the rulebooks, condensed and made more generic, would be a fantastic resource for players and GMs.

alrighty, diving back into rules modification/clarification bickering:

As I see in, having a "party" of player characters confronted by a number of opponent,s let's say three PCs confronted by 5 brigands, presents a couple of fundamental challenges in the RoS system as presented.

If the participants basically 'pair off' and two of the PCs are stuck with having to fight two bandits each, how does a single PC gain and keep initiative over his two opponents? If one bandit throw red and the other throws white, the PC goes white and... One bandit has initiative, the PC is on the defensive, and the second bandit is... Unengaged? Also has the initiative? Is is necessary for the PC to successfully block/parry an attack from both bandits to get the initiative against both? Can he win the initiative back from just one? Can one of the bandits switch to attacking a different PC if his buddy seems to have this guy pretty well in-hand?

If one of the combatants in a multi-fighter melee successfully uses a Full Evasion maneuver, a pause between him and his opponent occurs. If this was during the fist exchange of a round and the evaded opponent still had dice left in his CP, can he opt to attack somebody else or are they simply lost?

These are the kinds of things that I'm not sure simply compiling the published rules will straighten out.

>nglips empire

DAMN IT 7TH SEA NEEDS IT SO MUCH MORE THOUGH

Oh, 7th Sea... Such a piece of shit, but I love you so much.

Okay. 4chan is being flakey and letting me browse but not post. Here goes:

Yes. Probably. Maybe. I don't know, I hadn't thought that far ahead. At least all the published rules would be publically yarr-able in good quality, making all of this possible.

Current .pdf status:
All pages scanned.
Front cover 1 to p. 142 cleaned. pp. 143 - 233 (Book 7: The World of Weyrth) not yet cleaned. Appendices Cleaned.

That's about a full evening's work. Having just gotten off the phone, I still don't have a clue about this evening. Don't worry guys, I haven't forgotten about tRoS, it's just life being a bitch. Even if I do stay in tonight on my own and work on the scans then I can't make it a late night tonight - need to be up on campus for nine in the morning to run stuff for motherfucking freshmen.

Responsability. Just say no.

>>16474051
Feel free to skip over the Weyrth-style material, if it saves you work.

>>16474051
Keep up the good fight at whatever pace doesn't totally burn you out, man.

>>16474002
Indeed.

Nah. It's reached the point where this copy is going to be a perfect fascimile, damn it!

>>16474041
Post me a copy. Persuade me that I'd be breaking the law for morally justifiable reasons. That's what one of the anons did. Fuck it, I've never played The Riddle of Steel. I haven't even properly read the rules...

>>16474064
Pace isn't an issue, it's having the time available. It's going to get even worse soon if I start working evenings as well.

fffffuuuuuuuuuuucking 4chaaaaaaaan.
RAAAAAEEEEEG.

Anyway, I'm off in a bit. I'll probably give this thread a quick browse in four or five hours time whatever happens, so feel free to leave any questions or adulations for me in the meantime.

>>16470652
No, it's in a small town in the italian alps called mezzegra.

>>16474113
Can you upload a bookmarked version of the pdf, without the world of weyrth pages ?

>>16474336
>Can you upload a bookmarked version of the pdf, without the world of weyrth pages ?

Solution: download the pdf we have, with those clean sections on it. Bookmark it your goddam self.

>>16474791
Problem : I'm too fucking lazy.

>>16474798

Solution: Go be fat somewhere else.

>>16474828
Good God, what is that grotesque display?! I hope that's just a shop and not really a horribly disfigured kitten...

Then you can fucking wait. If I'm going to put the time and effort into bookmarking a copy of tRoS, I'll do it to the finished version. You lazy git.

In terms of how I'd improve tRoS:

I'd adjust social rank to have three separate aspects, initially set by level:
Social Rank (where an abbot is equal to a local lord is equal to a regionally important merchant, an important priest to a knight to a member of the town council, a village priest to a freeman to a squire etc).
Lifestyle: Not just how much land you own (real property, as lawyers still call it) but also the trappings of rank, the ability to summon vassals/servants, have five fresh horses summoned.
Spending Money: the amount of loose change you have lying around. What a burgher or bishop will spend on arms (the knight will get some free as part of his lifestyle) and everyone will spend on taverns if in an unfamiliar place where no friend will put them up.

I'm thinking something close to Shadowrun's lifestyle rules combined with Cthulhu's use of wealth/social status as a diplomatic skill.

By level, do you mean by being selected during character creation?

Thing is, if we were really going to put the effort into making a Riddle of Steal or something, why the hell shouldn't we just home brew up a narrativist/simulationist low fantasy/historical RPG with dice pools and a big focus on fight mechanics? At least then it would be less of a legal black hole...

>>16474940
It's more work for less guaranteed results.

Riddle of steel works fine on certain points, rewriting them seems pointless, except considering copyright issues or giving undue importance to originality. We want something to play, not to sell.
We're also less competent than RoS's authors to write on these points. We should concentrate on what we're most able to do as fa/tg/uys and make the most of what others did for us, better than we could.
Also, if we fail to complete our work, if it's compatible with RoS it will still be of use as houserules for some people; if it's not it will just be wasted time.

Looks like there won't be any tRoS-ing tonight, sorry dudes.

I'll try and get some done on Sunday night though...

>>16474940
What you've been up to with the PDF is a copyright violation, but compiling and tweaking the rules is not:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
>Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.
<too long, had to snip>

>>16474855
I'm generally inclined to agree on these, but a couple of questions:

What role does social rank have on any other game mechanism? Attributes, Proficiencies, Skills, and Merits/Flaws all affect how a character interacts with the world around him when dice are rolled. Under what circumstances do I get more dice or lower TNs for being an Abbot as opposed to a poor Friar?

A lot of good could be done simply by compiling the workable ruleset of RoS, a combination of Core, FoB and Companion material, into one volume.

After that it's just a matter of how well edited the entire project is, and how structured it is. I will go on the record as saying that it is impossible to organize a rulebook worse than the corebook of Riddle of Steel, unless you were to study diligently and then specially labor to be a worse collator of information.

>>16477577
My god. You just found the redeeming feature of 4th Edition D&D. "It's kind of well organised in the core book".

It's not an edition flame war if it's in a RoS thread. It's GNS gumph instead.

And home again, a hobbits tale. Today was really fun.

So all that it would take would be re-writing the entire rulebook to make it legal? Well, when you put it like that...

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

Now, Sunday for finishing the .pdf has been called into question on account of hookers and blow. I will try and finish it tomorrow afternoon instead, unless casual labouring intervenes.

any thoughts on how a compilation should be organized?