Since this game uses an Asymmetrical System I wanted to think out loud for a little and see if anyone else wants to join me.

Asymmetrical? You say; What ever do you mean?

Well, let's put it this way: Heroes have one set of choices abilities etc available to them. The Loremaster (NPCs) have a different set, and their rules are not equal.

Example:
Heroes have Hope... monsters have Hate, and they are not the same... not even close. For example Monsters are Weary when their Hate runs out, Heroes are Weary when their Endurance meats their Fatigue. Heroes can Intimidate opposing forces so they Lose Hate Points...

Heroes chose Stance... Opponents doesn't. This is a big one, since it gives the Heroes the advantage of selecting the base TN for the Exchange... both them and the monsters will use this TN.

All of this is well... nice. I like it. Mostly. But I can also fore see some difficulties or limitations to it. Let's say we have an NPC that starts out as Friendly, and for some reason becomes a Foe later on... that basically mean I have to have TWO versions of the guy in place. And if Heroes engage other humans in battle... what then? Should they have Hate and Monster abilities?

I know the source material has very little of this. A band of human brigands laying in ambush for the company is more or less unprecedented in this setting. But it could happen... or rather, some people might want to play it like that. And then what? The down side to this system is that I get the feeling it is very much biased towards monsters being monstrous, and every one else being "do-gooders".

Let's say my Hero suffers a really bad Bout of Madness and attacks my dearest friend. (Another Hero)...

Who will select the stance?
Can one Intimidate the other? Since None of them has a "Hate" score I mean...

See where I'm going with this? I can become tricky when two parties that are suppose to be on the same side, suddenly Fight each other... the "Asymmetrical System" handles such situations quite badly.

The upside of course being that the system handles every "regular" situation quite fluently and good.

Any ideas?

/wolf

Good observation/foresight. I'm not sure if there is an official way to handle hero gone mad vs. sane hero fights. The combat assumes groups, or a company, is engaging another group. Stances reflect each person's position and intention in the melee relative to their allies.

For one on one fights, I'd probably use a Battle skill contest per round to see who attacks first and selects the stance, with a character who is suffering a bout of madness defaulting to Forward. You could also assume the Open stance and use the Battle contest to see who strikes first.

If the sane hero wanted to "Intimidate" his corrupted companion, I might turn a successful Intimidate test into a chance for the other character to snap out of it and end the madness before doing any harm. Just an idea.

Yes but the problem is the same if we use groups of people... let's say two Villages of Woodsmen that have been in a feud with each-other for a long time (over some past slight now forgotten)... what then? I don't think one of the sides could be said to be Monsters...

But I guess the side with the PCs always pick stance. The other don't. But in this fight we might have NPC vs. NPC as well... will the NPC on the Heroes side bother with Stances at all? I would say no die rolls have to be made here at all, and the Loremaster simply decides, but you never know.

Over all there is very little talk about Heroes bringing Allies along that are not Heroes but help out in Combat etc. anyway...

Maybe this is a genre choice, so we should simply stay away from the idea. I can live with that. But it's good to know before I start writing my Campaign, what I can do and what will cause problems.

/wolf

Just nominate one group as the "focus" of the fight, and use simple rules for stances...

Instead of declaring them, say that the heavy armoured ones use defensive, ranged use rearward, all others use open, except the frothing crazed guy who started the feud - he went mad and he is in forward stance. During the whole fight. No real bookkeping.

Actually the only house rule I intend to bring into my (planned) campaing is to giving a +3 "parry" TN modifier to enemies if for some reason they fight defensively or actively trying to evade hand-to-hand combat (simple options instead of defensive/rearward stance).

Concerning the NPC who turns against the PC, why the need for different stats? I mean, the whole system is a little abstract in some instances, so if you created the NPC in detail, just use his combat stats as usual, but turn hope into hate - even though they may work different, for this purpose once the NPC fights the PC, all it depends on is if he becomes weary or not, or is still able to fight. No monster abilities for this one. The PC still chose stances and most probably get initiative as the NPC turns on them attacking. Else simply use all the rules applying to monsters, called shots, falling unconscious with no endurance left, dying with one wound, etc.

Sure I can wing it.

But I have to admit it would be a Blind Shot.

Turn Hope into Hate, maybe... Like you said, they are not the same, even doing so, what could that Hate trigger? The character previously had no Abilities that were triggered by hate.

Look... instead of bogging down into hypothetical details and whimsical examples, let's just state facts about the system:

One side always picks Stance (thereby have a control of the confrontation) the other side doesn't.

One side always adds Attribute Level to every roll, the other side have to pay Hope to do so.

One side have Hate to trigger lots of nasty Effects, the other doesn't.

One side is Weary when their Hate reaches Zero, the other is weary when their Endurance meats their Fatigue.

One side can fight on while wounded, the other is out when wounded unless they have an Ability that says otherwise.

etc etc etc

It's Asymmetrical. Simple as that. And I have no idea what would happen if this balance was interrupted/changed/modified by house-rules.

/wolf

Yes, it' s asymmetrical, I agree. But just to keep with the facts: The easiest way to see what happens and how much it really does effect the balance ... try it. I definately will. Maybe hate will not do anything to "simple human non-monsters" except making them weary when nothing is left, but well, humans don' t have any nasty side effect except being human anyway. So do a playtest or two, try the fight and see the results ...

I totally agree. This is something we have to test.

My "reflex" response to this is; If two sides fight, and they both have statitics like Heroes (or their allies). With Hope and such...

I would remove the Stance rules altogether and just have a TN of 10+Parry for everyone.

The reasoning being; if everything else about them is the same, why should one side have the "Stance Benefit" and not the other.

/wolf

This is a very important subject, thanks to the OP for bringing it to the table.

I'd certainly love to hear what Francesco has to say about the matter if he can pop in to give us a little light here, if he isn't busy with Gen Con affairs of course.

; )

We surely need and official opinion on this one!

I don't see any issue here.

The asymmetrical stance is not based on human vs monster but on PCs vs their opponents. If you keep that persepctive, then the system works fine.

Named Loremaster Characters are detailed in the rules and these don't change depending on what side they are on. Loremaster Named Characters don't use Hate or any Special Abilities. As such, the rules for adversaries otherwise work fine as written.

At a push, just give them a Special Ability and some Hope points if you are desperate to given them one.

In terms of PC vs PC fighting then yes, that's more problematic if you adopt that perspective.

In the example you gave, one of the PCs has clearly lost control (in fact the rules say the player reqlinquishes control of the PC to the GM) and as such would be the adversary. So the asymmetrical rules work OK there too. Again, as GM, I wouldn't use any Hope or Special Abilities in that state but most PC special abilities work fine.

So, that just leaves two PCs attacking each other where neither is lost to the Shadow. IMO the game has much bigger issues than the assymetrical rule system at this stage and should be given more consideration than a rules hack.

Here's a proposition to consider, assymetrical rules often seem more symmetrical in play

The problem with symmetrical rules is that they don't take into consideration the practical differences in the roles of the GM and player. A GM cannot function identical to multiple players in terms of smart decision making and knowledge of capabilities.

Anyone who has played a game like D20 or Exalted can tell you this. You can spend hours making equivalent level NPCs to the PCs, only to find them blown out of the water by players who know their PC inside out and can focus on just a single PC's strategy.

What an assymetrical system can do is counter that practical assymetry and make things seem more symmetrical. TOR does exactly this. By removing and condensing a lot of trigger timing and resource management for the GM, the GM is able to operate all his NPCs much more like each player can operate their single PC. NPCs can do Called Shots, use Special Abilities and boost Favoured Skills just like PCs but they do it all in a much simpler fashion.

Anyway, food for thought.

Indeed.

And maybe I came off a little negative here. Claiming to list pros and cons and then promptly proceeding to list only cons. That was not my intention.

Clearly asymmetrical systems have their cons. Usually it's in the way the GM handles a multiple opponents at the same time and still get the game to flow. I still have not tried this so I'm assuming this is the case even in this game.

And like you said... 85-90% of the time my issues will probably be non-issues, and we will be fighting Orcs and Spiders. :-)

As it should be.

/wolf

At the start of this thread, the subject of 'bad bout of madness' was mentioned as the cause of player vs player combat.

With the disclaimer that I have read the rules, but not had chance to play yet (selfish player going on holiday with his family this week!) I have a thought considering hate.

To get a really 'bad bout of madness', the character will have gone temporarily mad at least once and possibly several times.

If you want to use a hate mechanic... use the number of Permanent Shadow points as Hate. The PC is clearly behaving as a 'monster' and should imo be treated as such.


And as for the lack of monsters in the book! Can't say I recall there being many monsters in the Lord Of The Rings and the Hobbit, so I don't consider it a problem.

Admittedly there are no Nazgul or Dragons, but Smaug was the last dragon iirc and if you put the characters up against a Nazgul.... short version would be TPK.

I know there are no bandits, but I already have a plot in mind involving bandits and will simply treat them as orcs or goblins for the rank and file and maybe one PC equivalent as leader.

What about the Named Loremaster Character rules? I personally think that Hate and Special Abilities should be reserved for monsters to make them stand out as being truly scary. More mundane foes work fine from the their Skills using those rules.

Why are there no bandits? Just because Tolkien didn't specifically say that there were doesn't mean there weren't any. There were certainly numerous examples of "bad" men from the books.

edit. Or did you mean that there weren't any pre-stated bandits? In that case Skywalker is correct they are easily created using the encounter (?) rules.

Yes, I meant no bandits in the monster lists.

I will consider a bandit to be a goblin with a better complexion and (slightly) better social graces!