Hi,

I mentionned in another post a problem I had with XP and battles, but I think it got buried in talks about APs.

Since weapon skills are improved by APs, they also are not awarded any APs when used. This means that you can't really improve your fighting skills by fighting, which seems a little bit illogical. I think the purpose of this was not to encourage players to resort to fights all the time, but on the other hand, fighter type characters are at a disadvantage compared to other stereotypes.

I don't want to encourage fighting, but I want the characters to be able to learn something from difficult battles.

In my next games, I think I'll introduce the following home rule: after a difficult battle, the characters that fought will be awarded 1 XP. Difficult battles are battles fought on an unfamiliar ground, against unfamiliar enemies, or in peculiar situations. Or maybe even battles when you got hurt. This is so that you can't just gain XP by slashing orcs repeatedly.

What do you think? Any other ideas?

The only potential problem I see right off the back is keeping track of Adversaries encountered. Call of Cthulhu does something like this and if not carefully watched it is very easy to lose track of which creatures you have already encountered.

I'll give the idea more thought.

Weapon skills are improved through XP spend, as Wisdom and Valour. It's the common skills that are improved with AP. I can't see any problems awarding an extra XP or two if the character does well in a combat - though in normal cases I'd include awards for the combat in the session XP total.

I think you are exactly on track. However, I would reread p. 17 of the LB for more inspiration on this. Combat is unavoidable and gloomy business. As such, the rout of the enemy is very likely to be part of the company objectives. It is not that they are warmongers, but the Shadow poses a threat to all of Middle-earth they cannot afford to ignore. Instead, they must persevere.

If they have succeeded in this, they have deserved a supplementary XP point or two (according to the guidelines provided in the rules).

I think only awarding that extra XP to characters that fight in a battle situation diminishes the contribution of those who want to try innovative solutions. What about the character who spends the whole battle inspiring his allies? Even worse, what if the party chooses to fight the stone troll instead of keeping him occupied till daybreak, just because they want the extra XP?

If it were just weapon skills, that would be one thing (though I still don't think it's a good idea). However, XP is used to buy Valour and Wisdom as well, which includes noncombat items and abilities.

I'd award AP for common skill improvement if they use the alternate methods you state. Probably with Riddle or Persuade for the Troll?

The problem is that APs aren't nearly as important as XP. Wisdom and Valour have a large impact on the game, as they give out capability that you can't gain in any other way, and help defend against the biggest dangers in the setting (fear and corruption).

I think APs are as important, especially if you're going for a narrative heavy gaming style. And even if you aren't... Battle rolls give you an edge in combat, Travel rolls help you cross... well, any distance, Stealth can help you sneak up on people, Hunting keeps your belly full... I definitely think APs are as important as Experience Points.

Beleg,
AP's might be, but as Yusei already pointed out, that issue was covered in another topic. Right now he's looking for suggestions and commentary about awarding XP.


Yusei,
You might already be thinking of it this way, but I would change the wording for the XP award to something like:

Any character that actively participates in combat (whether through the application of force or the use of knowledge, skills, Rewards or Virtues) in a particularly effective, disastrous or supportive manner, can be awarded a +1 XP bonus.

It allows for character with less effective combat skills to earn the reward for participating in other ways. Even something as simple as distracting opponents so the real warriors can dispatch them more efficiently.

Yes, they can be important...but characters in The One Ring start with a decent set of skills from their race, and get 10 points to improve on that list. You can up combat skills at the beginning...but it will take a large chuck of that 10 points. You get a single Virtue or Reward at the start of the game, and everything after that requires XP.

So, I would consider the ability to raise a combat skill higher than 2 dice or get more Virtues and Rewards more important than noncombat skills. If a particular noncombat skill is important to me, I have enough discretionary points at the start of the game to take it all the way to 4...even if I had 0 in it to begin with. That option isn't available for combat skills.

Getting back to the topic...if you award XP for battles, I suggest that you award an equal number of XP for someone who overcomes the same challenge without entering combat. Restrict how the awarded XP is spent so the person who chose combat has to put it in a combat skill or combat-oriented Virtue/Reward, while the person who didn't choose combat spends it on a noncombat Virtue or Reward.