A few questions... (and my initial read on them in parenthesis)

1) Aside from called shots with bows/spears, and virtues/rewards, is there any other way to affect penetration chances? (IE, can hope be spent to add something to the roll? My read on it is no, but it feels unclear.)

2) On the terrain difficulty table, the labels match to the task difficulty labels; does this actually imply the fatigue test should be modified for these, or just the time?

3) Why is the range table included, when the combat rules don't result in generating the information needed to make use of it? (I suppose it could be useful if battle rolls succeeded and generated remote features, but it seems to add nothing.)

4) Wildo Took is engaged against Grot the Uruk on turn 1, during a battle where the PC's have the numerical superiority...
4a) Can Wildo, in turn two, engage a different orc on turn 2 even if he doesn't change stance?
4b) Can Wildo, in turn two retain engagement to Grot on turn 2 even tho he changes stance?
(for both, I strongly think so, but one of my players wanted me to be certain)

5) Establishing a new patron is a single party member action, yes?
(IIUC, the only one requiring everyone is Establish new sanctuary.)

6) Can Wildo help Thorgrim remove Thorgrim's shadow points during the fellowship phase?
(I didn't allow it, but I'm sore tempted to next time.)

7) is there any provision for help other than by the prolonged action rules?
(If there is, I missed it...)

And Frustrations

I'll note that I found it frustrating that Healing wasn't in the Index, nor Revovery, nor Wound. (All of which are in "Getting Better" on AB144, which IS on the index, but is an unusual wording.) Having a minimally functional index is useful, but many of the terms should be dual entry. Healing and Recovery should both be root level and point to AB 144-145, in addition to recovery being listed as a subentry under "Getting Better".

In fact, the index is pretty weak; it's enough to be useful, but I'm glad I got the PDF, as I find myself searching on key words instead of using the index due to it's lack of clarity and not having cross-reference and common terms-of-the-art entries.

It's Very pretty, but the PDFs suffer for the background images when read on my ebook reader or when printed. It is readable size text, tho, on my ebook reader (a Sony PRS600), tho just barely.

And Kudos
My initial session went smoothly.

The writing is actually rather clear, despite my number of questions... Usually, I just ask my friendly neighborhood rules-lawyer, but he's not playing in the group this time, and I'm not certain if he's bought the game yet.

And the "Is it just me?" comment
I find myself a bit frustrated by the two-book layout having both actions and combat split between the two books.

I think the stars instead of more traditional circles or lozenges for skill levels a nifty artistic touch (so much so that I wound up generating a font to include the needed runes and added them), but my players seem somewhat less thrilled, and they feel impractical in play.

Hi Arams,
I'm only addressing point 3 pf your post. There is a Combat Complications table in the LM book. The effects of range on missile combat is included in this table.

But not how to figure what the range is in combat. Mods with no mechanical input to trigger them, since combat ignores range.

I was aware of the mods, and they are, essentially, pretty well useless for the combat rules as included.

When I started to played roleplaying game at 27 year old I than now 61 year old. I remember the GM part of the book cover 1 page to than maximu of 5 pages. Many time I make up ruleing to keep the game moveing. To make than rule book that would cover everthing the book would be 20,000 8 by 11 pages long.

Aramis,
I believe previous discussion in the forum agreed that 4a & b are yes answers. Unfortunately you've done a lot more reading that I have so I cannot advise you further.


Barenziah58,
Yes, a lot of the PDF-only rule books that were being produced a couple of years ago were getting close to that size. Lots of 400-600 page books. Although they did contain everything needed to play. Rule book, character creation, bestiary, etc.

...its called Pathfinder!

Ah right Aramis, I see what you are getting at.

I think that it's really only in the Opening Volley phase of combat that the ranges would be utilised and then only very loosely. I suppose it's one of the problems with a system that seems to play fast and loose with movement rates in combat.
I think it says that the LM can award more than one 'shot' in the Opening Volley phase.
I would take this as opponents appear at some distance from the party and start to advance rapidly. LM decides that there are three shots in the Opening Volley phase. first shot is at Long range, second at middle range etc.
That's my take on it anyway.

Also, there are situations where melee combat is inappropriate but misfile fire isn't.

Eg

The characters are travelling down the River Running in a boat through the Long Marsh. A score of Orcs appear out of the reeds. A done of them push off the shore on a pair of rafts while the reminder exchange missile fire with the characters and crew.

Ranges and modifiers are needed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite that way because if there's a given distance between the two sides, then "short," "medium," or "long" range will depend on what weapon you're wielding.

As an example, this is how I've ruled it in-play. I don't bother trying to calculate the exact distance in yards (so far), but I do have a ballpark mental image of how far away the enemies are. The heroes were making a stand on top of a hill, which was surrounded by wargs. The Company included a Dwarf, who was sneaking down the hill trying to break through the circle, and a Barding (with a great bow) and Beorning (with a spear), both of whom were standing on the top of the hill providing cover fire. I ruled that the Beorning's spear took a +2 TN penalty for being at medium range during the opening volley when the wargs ambushed the Dwarf, though the Barding's bow was obviously unaffected, having a much greater "distance window" for short range.

In most fights where both sides are advancing, I just assume that if there's one opening volley that combatants with shorter-range weapons will hold their fire until they're within short range. In this case, the Barding could be hanging out anywhere up to his short range threshold if he's in rearward stance from the get-go, unless he specifies otherwise ("I'm hanging really far back, like 50 yards away." "Ok, you take a +4 TN penalty for being at long range."). I haven't run a combat where two opening volleys were granted, but in this case I'd likely tell the Beorning to hold off until the second volley, after he's had time to close the distance a little bit. If I had a hero with a regular bow, I might have him take a +4 penalty for the first shot, whereas the Barding would only get a +2 (depending on how far away I was visualizing everyone, of course). For the second volley I'd assume that both bow-users closed the distance enough to get themselves into close range (again, unless they specified that they were hanging back).

EDIT: Ultimately, range does come up in the combat rules because whenever the LM describes the scene by saying "you're X yards away" he should also be applying that penalty based on what weapon you're using.

Hi Alien, my example above assumed that all characters who were capable of missile fire were armed with the same missile weapon or projectile. Suppose I should have mad that clear.

Anyway, I normally assume that all combats start at short range for opening volley phase. Normally, if I decide that two shots are appropriate I start the combat at medium range with an ordinary bowshot as the basic unit of measurement. So medium range is 20+ yards. This is, of course, long range for a character with a spear and so on.

I think that what really defines the Ranged Combat Stance is not range per se, but the fact that it's rearward. That's why you can only assume the stance if two other characters are in a close combat stance, and if there aren't too many opponents. The idea is that these other characters serve as a sort of screen, giving the character(s) in the rear the time and space necessary to set up their shots. What that means is that you and I can both be rearward, but whilst you're 10 feet from your intended target, I'm 20. Again, range, if it is dealt with at all, is a matter of storytelling, i.e. you describe how your rearward character moves into what might be considered a better position for making the shot.

Remember, the game mechanics, as I read them, aren't trying to simulate medieval combat perfectly, but rather trying to spur players to describe what their characters are doing, and, as far as possible, in a way that feels like something you'd read in Tolkien.

Yes, I agree but, 'Opening Volleys' are carried out before stances are chosen (at a default TN 12).

The numbers of available shots, movement of opponents and ranges are down to LM fiat. This idea is just my way of trying to rationalise what happens in the moments leading up to actual melee.

Still no answers on the above, and more questions...

8) Aside from Fellowship points and Fellowship Foci, are there other in-rules sources for regaining hope?

9) How long is a session for purposes of Fellowship? I tend to run 5-7 hour sessions - and am thinking that, if the design was aimed at 3-4 hours per session, I need to restock the fellowship pool mid session as well as start.

8) There is a Virtue called Confidence that allows you to restore Hope and get 2 more IIRC.

There are also moments where Hope can be given as a reward IIRC. From page 27 of the LMB:

9) Your call. A session is a session. Tinker with it to suit your playstyle, though I am guessing a 4 hour benchmark is right.

1) You can't spend Hope to boost Penetration. It only is used to add Attribute bonus to rolls.

2) The terrain difficulty table only applies to time taken, but this may mean more fatigue rolls are needed. The labels you refer to are applied to all TNs, see AB.

5) Its unclear but I would say the default would be that it is a Fellowship action, but allow PCs to so individually if they prefer. This could create some interesting inter-party conflict.

6) Heal Corruption only effects the PC doing it by the RAW.

7) No.

7. The hazard rules simply have each character helping to face a hazard roll the test and then looks at the total number of successes scored by anyone. Usually only one success is required.

I suppose this could apply to other situations as well "I will help Nori try to decipher the inscription on the Runestone." We both roll. Neither one of us has a better chance of success, but the Fellowship now has two chances instead of one for success.

9. A "session" is a session. If you run long sessions and the Fellowship really needs to recharge partway through you could call a break midway through and call it two sessions, one before and one after the break. I have done this with the Mouseguard RPG which divides play into a GM's turn and a Players' turn for each session. If we are moving on at a good clip I will simply run a second (or subsequent) cycle, each of which counts as a new session for things that occur over the break between sessions. This keeps the spirit of the rule if not the strict letter. It also helps not to penalize players who are either efficient and well organized or enjoy playing long game sessions.

I can remember 12 hour plus game-a-thons from my youth and if those were treated as a single session in TOR it would not be good...

Thing is, Mouse Guard has an EXPLICIT 2 hour intended session length. (And, I've found, that tends to be about right for the logical "session" in MG, that being one GM turn and one Player Turn. I've run a 6 player, 6 month, 4-5 hours per session campaign of MG.)

So the designer's intent really is a question that should be addressed in Errata, IMO... because of using "session" as a limit, it really needs to be specified what the designer thinks is a "normal session's length." If it was 2 hours, then I need to be refreshing twice a gathering; if it's 5 hours, then probably not.

(My idea of a normal session is 3-4 hours, for reference... even tho' my typical session is 50% over that. Why? that's the normal convention RPG game slot length!)

Totally agree. It's really helpful - vital, often - to have clear designer's notes so players and GMs (especially) can understand the designer's expectations when running a game.

For example, the designers of D&D4e had concrete assumptions about how many magic items (and what power level) should be available per character per level. That, in turn, affected how their encounter balance math worked, which in turn affected how characters progressed. Tinkering with one part affected everything else, so if you, for example, wanted to run a low-magic game with few (if any) magic weapons, PCs would be fundamentally handicapped if you didn't make significant modifications to how encounters were intended to be created.

For TOR, it's extremely valuable, for example, to know how long a "session" is in the eyes of the designer, how much and how fast Treasure and Standing are to be acquired, etc.

Obviously, it's up to the GM (and players) to find their sweet spot for all such pacing elements, but knowing how the designer intended things to work makes it easier to modify without breaking other sub-systems.

Regarding session length, there this discussion thread way back when the game came out. I don't know if that helps or not. The basic consensus then was at roughly four-hour sessions.

The biggest issue regarding session length is ensuring that you don't skew Advancement Point gain vs Experience Point gain too much. XP are gained per session, but AP's are tallied during the Fellowship Phase. Given that it's tougher to get APs after you've gotten the initial ones in a skill group, long multi-session adventures will see players gaining XP at a higher rate than APs (and as a result, weapon skill, valour, and wisdom will increase faster than common skills).

I'll note that Marsh Bell seems to be broken into 4 practical parts (Social, Swamp Travel, Marsh hazards, Dungeon), with three labeled parts (social in Esgaroth, travel down the swamp, then part 3 being both hazards and dungeon), and in 5.5 hours of play (1500-2100hrs, less 30min for dinner), we made it through getting into the dungeon portion, plus an extra Travel to get to Esgaroth in the first place (since we didn't start there).

in the older thread...

If that's the criteria, then a session works out, for my group, to be about 1-2 hours of play. I don't disagree with his reasons, but it's a very fuzzy metric, and would be FAR more forgiving than one fellowship fill per 5.5-6 hours as we've been doing.

I'll note that the older thread doesn't seem to find a consensus, either.

TOR is not MG though. If you try and make this aspect of TOR explicit then you will find that other aspects of the game will be deficient, as the two games have different design intents. MG is rigid through and through. TOR isn't.

It is a fuzzy metric, but TOR is built on such metrics to allow GM judgement and group consensus to tailor the game to their tastes. IMO it explicitly says play your game not the designer's game, and I think that is a part of its appeal.

Don't ignore this freedom, embrace it. You have a four hour benchmark but honestly you can change it to suit your tastes and the game doesn't break.

Well, I'm using consensus in a very loose manner, meaning, "more than one person said it without everyone else disagreeing."

I think that 4 hours is a pretty fair benchmark, though my group normally doesn't go beyond 3 hours in a single go. That said, we also got through the entirety of The Marsh Bell in around 4 hours, so we probably tend play at a somewhat faster pace. I'll just be sticking with a single one of our sessions for for Fellowship pool refresh and xp handout.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, IIRC, the LB states somewhere that adventures should take at least 2 sessions to play through. Therefore, if you're getting through adventures in one session, you should probably think about splitting your session into 2 "sessions" for the purpose of the mechanics.