When a character suffers a bout of madness, it gains a flaw according to its shadow weakness. Later on, this flaw can be invoked by LM / roleplayed by player into not-so-heroic behaviour.

Should such a behaviour earn the flawed character more shadow points? Some flaws seem to imply behaviour that would earn a character in normal situations.

Is the shadow corruption of a character supposed to be a linear degeneration or a quadratic one (i.e. do flaws get you more flaws more rapidly).

I understand that such is often the case in "real life" and by extension in literature. But is this appropriate for a RPG?

[edited for clarity]

I'd say it is supposed to be a downward spiral - misdeeds mean that you have to take shadow, even if they are the result of a flaw.

I'd say it is supposed to be a downward spiral - misdeeds mean that you have to take shadow, even if they are the result of a flaw.

EDIT: Sorry, double-post glitch.

Rules-wise, flaws are invoked by the LM.* As a LM, I would never force a character do something that would directly gain them Shadow such as committing a misdeed.


* Players, of course, are free to roleplay flaws as they wish.

... Once you start down the path of the darkside, forever will it dominate your destiny.



One of the things I have on my 'to do' list is a Star Wars hack using TORs system. I think it would make for a very elegant set of mechanics.

While it would make sense to have periods of flawed behavior cause a spiral downward into Shadow, I don't think this is something that a LM can really impose on the player through normal role playing.

The character would have to act in a manner that represents an increased progression of flawed behavior, affecting length, degree of malign actions, alteration of their personality, etc. Without this increase their might be repetition and variation of an evil act, but not a true embrace of the dark side. A character with Apples as their evil focus, might have to:

• hand out perfectly good apples
• hand out spoiled apples
• hurl apples at people from hiding
• bake apple pies with tainted ingredients, causing food poisoning
• bake apple pies with poison in them, offering them to strangers, following behind them to watch them become ill or die
• "befriend" strangers, overpowering them, and force them to eat poisoned apple products, gloating over their demise
• kidnapping strangers and poisoning them, giving them a perfectly good apple once they're dead as a kind of offering.

As you can see, the character might perform one "step" multiple times before moving onward, but eventually they have to progress to the next step. To my mind that means they have to gain more Shadow before moving. Simple "cause and effect". Except I'm not willing to accept that Shadow begets Shadow. Rather that Evil begets Shadow.

It is the character's intent to cause harm that gains a Shadow Point, not the simple fact that they have, once again, handed out a tainted pie or whatever. They can hand out bad pies until the end of the 4th Age. It makes them a horrible cook, not an evil one. They become an evil cook when they decide that food poisoning isn't enough and they would really like to see someone die and then act on that impulse.

Out of curiosity, how many of you LMs have had player-heroes slip this far into the Shadow? How many LMs have had to actually role-play this mechanic in a game session?

EDIT: I ask because I have yet to play the mechanic so I would be interested to hear of other's experience with their players.

This post has been edited by Eluadin on Sep 26 2012, 08:46 PM

Oh my goodness, is that what happened to Fangorn's entwife???


Seriously 'though, I can get behind this Evil begets Shadow thing (rather than Shadow begets Shadow).

As for my group, we have not experienced bouts of madness and character flaws yet, but I'm anticipating the event. I understand that one should really avoid shadow points like plague, but I don't want to run into a "might as well give me your character now 'cause he's going down before the end of the journey anyways" type of situation (or impression from the players).

Elaudin,
I have not yet had the pleasure of taking a hold of a character's soul and dipping it, like a cruller, into the tea of Shadow and consuming it bite by bite into a more thoroughly Evil whole.

I am, of course, always available for tea. I'll bring the tea if you'll provide the crullers.


Glorfindel,
Absolutely not!

She just made a particularly fine smoke for these hams I was curing. Now if she had stopped fussing and just allowed me to hack off limbs as needed, she might still be alive today... with a branch or three left and possibly the odd forlorn leaf on them... but she would still be alive!

No one likes getting "viciously" attacked by the Chuckle Patch.

I like that explanation Garn.

I suppose that it is actually a good thing that the player loses control of his character during a bout of madness. Shadow points should not be awarded against a player for evil actions that were outside their control. It is the player, acting through his character, who must perform the evil deed to get a shadow point.

LOL, I had to look up crullers! Having done that, I might suggest instead Frodo's scone recipe, and heatedly welcome the offer for tea!

Best,
E

REMARK: "Frodo's" scone recipe can be found in The QPB Companion to The LotR! Hmmmmm, yuummmmm...

On the other hand, most of Tolkien's references to Madness not only involve the loss of Free Will as it is upended by the Passions, but also a deeper spiral into Shadow. In my opinion, misdeeds done during a Bout of Madness and other Shadow accruing acts SHOULD have an affect and add to the player-hero's growing number of Shadow points. However, this MUST be balanced by LM integrity so as to not abuse or misuse the intention behind the mechanic. Otherwise, the LM might be endanger of garnering Shadow and him- or herself turning into the MACHINE!

Regards,
E

REMARK: When I say "Passions" I am referring to the Greek-sense of the word that Tolkien himself used and derives from the theological-anthropology of his day, dusty and dim though that may be...


NOTE: Some examples culled from the legendarium are Turin, Thingol, The Shadow of the Shadow: The Tale of the Mariner's Wife, and Saruman to name a few across the ages.

To be honest, I really find this concept a little disturbing - it feels like many people on this board interpret the Shadow point system as being about judging the player for the actions he decides to take with his character. I really don't get this - if I sit down with a group of friends to play a game, I don't want to judge their behaviour, I want to find a common ground that allows everyone to have fun; and being judged, for me, is usually not fun.

I tend to understand the Shadow point system as a mechanism that allows the player to flesh out her or his character in the course of the game, in collaboration with the LM: It is a cooperative effort between equal partners with different roles, not a relationship where the LM (or the rulebook) defines what is right and punishes everyone who doesn't conform with Shadow points.
Therefore, to me the only thing that matters for awarding Shadow points are the actions of the character (as opposed to the player) - it is not about whether the player decides to have his character doing something immoral, it is about which road the character takes. It is important that the player has as much control as possible about the path that the character takes, in my opinion; however, this is not achieved by punishing the character for the "bad decisions" of the player, but by awarding Shadow points in accordance with the actions of the character, regardless of how this actions came to pass.

Of course, I also don't like the element of the LM taking control of player characters or forcing players to play out a flaw; I think players should be in their right to deal with the dark side of their characters as they see fit. If they feel that their character should develop a strong dark aspect, they will have their character act accordingly and gather Shadow; if they don't feel that way, Shadow will probably remain external to their character and mostly feature as the influence of blighted lands and things like that, weakening their hope but not compromising them morally. In my mind, this is both perfectly legitimate; it is the player's choice how to interpret Shadow with regards to his or her character.

I'm not sure if this is against the spirit of the rules; as I said in another thread, I consider it a weakness in an otherwise brilliant set of rules that the problem of the division between players and characters is not explicitly adressed with regards to the rules for gaining shadow, because this is something that can really generate friction within a group if it is not handled carefully. The most important thing, as always, is that all the players around the table make sure that they are on the same page about this.

In my opinion, the Shadow mechanic and the Fellowship Phase Undertaking to remove Shadow are QUINTESSENTIALLY Tolkien and culled right from the stories! My heartfelt thanks goes out to Francesco for the laborious work of building a mechanic that captures the spirit of what happened to so many of my favorite Tolkien characters!

That said, oh yeah, it could be abused by LMs. Kinda like Morgoth abusing Eru's gift of Freedom endowed to Eru's Children...

Maybe, what might help, or at least makes sense to me, though I'm already a little far gone into accepting Tolkien's mythic premises...

What I meant to suggest is that an alteration to the mechanic might be proposed not as a sweeping or even necessary change to the rules as written; or presented as a necessary improvement to a flawed mechanic. Instead, might it not be offered as a cautionary tale and alternate system if there is concern?

For example, a player feels like he's getting "the rule of thumb" by the LM who is exploiting this mechanic. Hey, on the forum there is a suggested rule alternative complete with a new mechanic. "You mind if we give that a try...?" Or, a LM worries that this subtle and difficult element of Tolkien's world won't sit well with his or her players. "Let's discuss an alternate mechanic I found on the forum..."

Lets be honest, this part of Tolkien's Vision doesn't jive like a well-fitted jumper with our post-Modern, post-post-Modern, Neo-pagan, subjective turn, OR whatever the philosophers and pundits like to call this time we live in...and that makes it difficult to get into imaginatively--a breakdown of sorts in Secondary Belief. But, then again, maybe I need to PM Garn for that crullers recipe, stick to baking and keep my thoughts to myself...?

Regards,
E

I'm not sure if that is where the problem lies - I have no problems with embracing a moral system where there are clear-cut delineation of good and evil for the sake of the game (especially since Tolkien's model of good and evil still generates a lot of complexity, as evidenced by nearly al lot of his major characters - Turin Turambar, Thorin Oakenshield, Frodo Baggins, Galadriel, Boromir, Faramir ...).
BUT, is LM, I don't see it as my job to impose this moral system on the rest of the players. Either me and my players are on the same page about embracing this moral system for our game, or we play something else.
Therefore, it seems counterproductive to use the shadow rules to "educate" my players. Expecially since Misdeeds and the gathering of Shadow points through them are obviously SUPPOSED to be part of the game - so that a player who chooses to let his character perpetrate a Misdeed and take Shadow for it is actually fulfilling an important role for the narrative (as it is important that Turin kills Mim's two sons, a callous act, but part of Turin's path of tragedy). So this player shouldn't feel that he is punished with Shadow points for letting his character do something bad; rather, he should feel that the Shadow points are a representation of how the character changes through his actions. So in a way, the Shadow points are the LMs contribution to the character's story.

Putting it briefly, if the players wan't to play a Tolkienean campaign, some of them will certainly want to play more conflicted characters (like Boromir or Turin or even Smeagol), while others will want to play steadfast and good (like Sam or Aragorn or Bilbo), and still others will wan't to portray how the shadow can diminish the hope of their characters without them actually turning evil (like Frodo). The rules allow for all of this, and in my view, none of these paths should be imposed by the LM as a kind of punishment for the player chosing to have his character perpetrate a misdeed. The player should be allowed to use the rules as a tool to generate the story of his character. He should not feel that the rules are a set of Laws that allow the LM to punish certain actions to a certain degree.

Sorry for ranting, I just wanted to add something to clarify what I'm trying to say:

I actually wan't to encourage the players to play out different elements of the rules and the setting, and not "teach" them to do no Misdeeds.

E.g., if LOTR had been my campaign and the player of Frodo had pulled the "I will not destroy it!" at the end, this might have been one of the greatest WTF moments (in a positive sense) in my gaming life. It is something that follows naturally from the path the character has taken, it is tragic, it has weight. It is pure beauty. And I don't want to discourage my players from coming up with such elements by implying that shadow points are a punishment for players who make such dark decisions for their characters.

Basically, I guess I'm coming from a POLARIS standpoint here, if anyone knows the game. And I would be surprised if it hasn't had at least a little influence on TOR ...

Jakob,
I agree with this sentiment.

[This next isn't in any way meant to suede or change your argument. You seem pretty clear with the approach you've suggested for your game, both here and in your other thread. This is more an argument for why the mechanic as written needs to be part of TOR if it is to emulate Tolkien's Middle-earth.]

However, Shadow points and Bouts of Madness should not be represented by a LM as a punishment suffered by Players but an experience of player-heroes in the story. One consistent aspect of Madness in Tolkien's stories is the temprorary loss of Free Will. What better way to realistically portray this in the story as an experience of a player-hero then to shift the control of Free Agency from the Player who is its rightful owner to the LM?

And, madness, for Tolkien is loss of free agency so that action is no longer chosen but coerced from an external force acting on the character's integrity. In Middle-earth, this force acting from without that coerces and dominates is the Shadow encroaching on a character's freedom. This force is part of the very fabric of Middle-earth, the way it works and not a subjective element up to the caprice of individual freedom.

In game terms, this metaphysic that saturates Middle-earth, if re-created believably in game mechanics would need to influence the Player-character relationship if the Player ultimately represents a character's (player-hero's) freedom.

That said, I think your suggestion that the best way to emulate the stories is a collaboration by the LM and the players; and, I would add, some external element outside their control. For me that is the game mechanics if they are well done and a faithful emulation of Tolkien's stories and Vision. That's my own taste in gaming though; and that particular to Middle-earth, and my history with it!

Best regards,
E

AFTERTHOUGHT: In fact, the encroaching Shadow closes in and limits freedom through circumstance, constricting Tolkien's characters. But, conversely, the very limitations imposed from outside, something Tolkien refers to in a letter to his son Michael as the limits of circumstance, become the opportunity for nobility through personal choice despite circumstance - to rise above and show your character. That is, there is at work in Middle-earth an objective side to Shadow and Madness independent but inextricably linked to the subjective side. You need both in a the game, something objective: a mechanic that ultimately shows a lessening of freedom, and the possibility for rising above this in a heroic fashion. That's Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, in fact all of his characters were limited to a greater or lesser degree by circumstance. And, through, their actions these limitations become more and more pronounced until, despite an array of possible choices, they felt called to one alone. (He was counseling his son at the time as Michael was dealing with disillusionment with the Roman Catholic Church. In the letter Tolkien oft refers to his characters and the dynamics under which they suffer as the grounds for which they rise or fall to the occasion. So he built this "world-working way" into his stories as believed in real life. Now, we have a design who has emulated the stories. Can it be helped that he thought up something like the mechanic that we have? Then, again, this might have nothing to do with Francesco's rationale for including this mechanic ... .)

I think I absolutely agree with you on how the Shadow should affect characters in middle-earth; the only difference is probably that I feel much more comfortable with the players keeping control of their characters, even when the characters have temporarily lost their free will. But that is probably because I tend to see the players more as authors of their character's story than as actors playing their characters; which, in turn, is probably the case because most of my players see it that way too.

So, of course, it is a matter of preferences. I would only insist that it is not necessary to take away control of the character from a player to faithfully portray how the Shadow influences the actions of characters in middle-earth; you can just as well use the existing shadow rules, as written, but hand control of all of the characters actions over to the player, even when they succumb to a bout of madness. You just have to make sure that everyone knows what the game is supposed to be about. To me, this takes away a huge possible stumbling block.
(of course, it's just as well if the LM takes control of a players character, just as long as everyone has agreed in advance that that's how the game should be played.)

A very interesting discourse chaps. However, I firmly believe that an increase of shadow comes with a corresponding loss of free will(as already put forward by the ever erudite Eluadin).
This loss is perfectly represented by the RAW with the LM taking control of characters during bouts of Madness.
I'm not sure why Jakob finds it disturbing. It really isn't. I do not dictate characters behaviour to them but I do warn them of the dangers of shadow accumulation with the accompanying loss of free will(the use of their character). They are also aware that there is a level of morality(?) required in TOR (both setting and rules)which is absent from other settings(and rules). Elric, Conan and Lankhmar spring instantly to mind.
Regarding the idea that your characters are writing their own story. If I was to write my own biography there would be several bouts of madness in my younger years where the LM took control of me for a period of time. Those LM's would have been Arthur Guinness, John Jameson and Jack Daniels. I have experienced a couple of periods with no recollection of my actions at all and would have to rely on other parties to fill in the blanks on those pages.

LOL!

Jakob,
I think some of the discrepancy lies in your perspective of Middle-earth as compared to other commentators. Note, I am not saying that you are wrong, just that you've got a markedly different perspective.

I think it was Elaudin who initiated a topic about how the average world inhabitants living in a marginal setting, who have to deal with less divisively aligned decisions in their lives, would manage to survive without succumbing to Shadow. Ultimately a comparison was made to the Film Noir genre and Tolkien's use of Faeirie & Epic Tale genres - which are distinctly right/wrong or good/evil. The shades of gray that permeate all aspects of Film Noir just don't really exist for Tolkien's fictional setting.

From what I think you're saying, you are embracing more of a Film Noir version of Middle-earth. There are circumstances that negatively impact a characters personality, creating character conflict that may cause them to perform a "negative" action for what seems a "good" reason. And, in being true to their character's persona, these characters should not have to suffer from a negative game mechanic for what amounts to an arbitrary reason (ie, because the author "said so").

So, I get it. I don't agree mind you - at least not while we're in Middle-earth - but I get it. Now, if you want to step into a Pulp Mystery, Modern Age Comic, or several other game genres I could totally understand and back the idea. But not in Middle-earth where there is absolute good and absolute evil in this setting.

Garn,
I think you misunderstood, but re-reading my posts, I see that they are easy to misunderstand. I guess I started with a nitpick and took it a little too far. Let me try again:

What bugged me was the notion that a Shadow point should only be awarded if the player decides of his own free will to let his character perpetrate a Misdeed (not if the character is forced to perpetrate it because of a bout of madness or a flaw). The reason being that this might make it look as if Shadow points are not simply a representation of how much influence the Shadow has on a character, but also a punishment for players who make decisions that are not in line with the moral views of the LM.
Now, I'm perfectly on board with the notion that the Shadow influence strips a character of his or her free will; I just don't think that the player represents the free will of a character. To me, the player is fundamentally external to the character, he or she is the author of the character.
To give a simple example: If, in another game, a character would fall under a spell that binds his will to the purposes of the caster, I would usually tell the player what the orders of his character are and let the player choose the way to portray the actions his character takes in trying to fulfill this orders. I would not take control of the character away from the player just because the character has lost his free will, I would just define what the player has to try to achieve with his character. Or, put differently: I would present it to a player as an interesting task to play his character as someone who is in many ways still the same person, but led by another will.
Now, I kind of mixed this question up with when to award shadow points: I see that it makes more sense to award shadow points when a character (who is not the player) acts out of his or her own free will. So the character wouldn't gather shadow when acting out a bout of madness (even though it wouldn't matter if he received them, because they would evaporate right after anyway); However, Flaws are not the Shadow taking control of the character, as I see it; they are ways the character's character( ) is influenced by his or her confrontation with the shadow. So if the LM invokes a flaw of the character, the character is still acting out of his or her own free will, even if the player didn't initiate the action.
However, this is another question than if the LM should take control of the actions of a character or not. As a LM, I would always go with the latter - I didn't even have to invoke a flaw yet in actual play, but I would certainly tell the player that his or her character has to act according to a certain flaw in this moment and let the player play it out the way he or she sees fit. And I would go about a bout of madness the same way.
These are actually three different questions, and I got the mixed up. The first one is if the character should be awarded Shadow points for Misdeeds only of acting out of his or her own free will (I would say yes); the second one is if the player represents the free will of the character (I would say: not at my table); The third one is if the LM should take control of the actions of a character who is not acting out of his own free will (I would say, again: not at my table).

Ok, with the three questions I see what you're saying about mixing things up and causing some confusion. Cause I was confused.

Sorry about that - I just tend to start discussions about rpg theory, and then I get carried away ...

Sorry Jakob, but I'm completely in disagreement with you.

AFAIC, the player absolutely represents the free will of the character. The character is an invention of the player and does not exist without him. Anything that the character does that is suggested or imposed by the LM,DM,GM represents the loss of free will.

I rely don't understand this notion at all.

Of course the character is an invention. There are just different ways to think of the relationship of this invented character and the player.

One possibility is to see the character as a "conduit" through whicht the player acts in the fictional world; in that case, one could argue that the the temporary loss of free will is best simulated by taking control of the character away from the player, and that any instance where a player loses control of character represents a loss of free will. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not the way I like to play.

Another possibility is that the player is the "author" of his characters story; he narrates what his character does, regardless of the character does something of his own free will of governed by another will; the player might also be more likely to have his character do things that he or she as a player wouldn't do in his or her place.

It's just a matter of player's stance and of LMs expectations. I simply assumed that everyone plays rpgs in the same way as I do, which was my mistake.

Sorry Jakob, I'm really not getting it.

Whether the character (invented by the player) is a fantastical representation of himself (with his own morals) or something completely different, the player knows the role he is stepping into and exhibits free will within that role to act in, or against, type as he or she deems appropriate.

If you don't want to, or can't imagine playing a Paladin, then don't create a Paladin character is how I look at it.

So whether conduit or author, free will for the characters actions lies within the player. If not, then where does it lie?

All I am actually picking up from this is that you trust your players to role-play their bout of madness. I know from past experience that several of my previous players have tried to use insanity to their advantage or tried to downplay the detrimental effects(WFRP).
The loss of free will and the loss of your character go hand in hand for me in this setting.

Finally, are the shadow points a policing tool to reinforce(but not enforce) the morality of this setting? Yes, they are. If they were not, there would be no need for the Shadow rules and everyone could just act as they pleased.

I guess I just can't explain it better - English is not my native language, which might be part of the Problem.

Just one more thing to try and clarify: Of course, as you write, free will for the players actions lies within the player. But this debate isn't about the free will of the player, but about the free will of the character, and I'm trying to point out that they are not necessarily the same thing. If the player takes an authors stance, he might very well decide that his character falls under some kind of thrall and temporarily loses the capacity for free choice. However, the player still executes his own free will by having his character act not out of the own free will of the character.

I know, of course, that the character has no free will himself, but as he is a character, we imagine him to make decisions, just as we imagine that a character in a book makes his own decisions. If the character loses his free will because of a rules mechanism, it's just as if he get's wounded because of a rules mechanism: the character has no body, but we imagine that he has one and that it gets hurt. Likewise, the character has no free will, but we imagine that he has one and temporarily loses it. As I said, this can be represented by the player losing control of the character, but it is in no way a necessity.


About the Shadow rules beeing there to reinforce the morality of the setting: Yes of course. But to me, they are a tool. I would still say that everyone can do as he or she pleases, as long as everyone in the group is on the same page about what they want to play collectively.

Jakob, please see my edit above. The quote you have used has been altered.

Just as an appendix to this discussion: In our last session, I think I developed a better grasp of the Hope/Shadow economy of the rules as written. I think I like it better now. At the beginning of the next session, I'll probably discuss the concept of taking away character control when a character is undergoing a bout of madness - I'm still a little wary about it, but I will at least give it a try. Maybe it will work for me after all.
However, I still also like the idea of having my players play out their bouts of madness themselves - they might actually come up with much harsher (and more interesting) consequences for their own characters ...

Why is accumulating Shadow "punishment"? One might as well say accumulating Fatigue or Wounds is "punishment" as well? They are merely consequences of given actions and circumstances in this game.

That's exactly the way I see it; I'm just saying that a player might feel that he is being punished for playing "wrong" when the accumulation of Shadow points leads to a bout of madness and the LM takes control of his character; and that this potential problem should be adressed.

It isn't a "problem" in the rules/game any more than any other aspect of consequence for a character.

EDIT:

I guess the problem is educating players on the nature of games, rules and consequences. Accumulating Shadow, madness, injuries or dying aren't "losing" or "punishment" or anything of the sort. It's just part of the game. Learning to embrace and enjoy consequences will do more for people's enjoyment of games in general than changing the rules to protect someone's feelings.

Well, I wouldn't say that there is a problem with the rules (although I still think there might be worthwile alternatives that give the players more active roles in their character's "Shadow development"). As far as I can tell after three sessions, the rules work beautifully, and I actually like the sprialling effect of flaws and misdeeds as a concept. I didn't have a chance to play it yet, but I think it should work out wonderful.
The one thing that bugged me (the thing I startet another thread about with ideas for rules alternatives) was the line in the LM book saying that the LM might take away control of a character from a player "even against the will of the player". However, in hindsight, I feel that I read too much into this. I would still maintain that the phrasing is given to misunderstanding and couldd cause problems for inexperienced role-players; I can't shake the image of a LM with a snide grin on his lips taking away control of a character from a player who keeps saying: "No! You can't do that! It's my character!"

It's totally okay, as long everyone knows that when the LM takes control of a PC because of a bout of madness, this is a normal part of the game; and if everyone knows this and has agreed to it, then the LM doesn't act against the will of the player in taking over a PC, because the PC has already agreed to this in advance.

I would, however, also maintain that it is totally okay NOT to take control of a PC undergoing a bout of madness as LM; I will certainly not do it as LM, because I just don't like it. I will as the player to play his bout of madness himself, maybe give suggestions or veto certain actions, but I will not narrate to the player what his character ist doing.

That, however, is totally possible with the RAW. There is little need to change them, and my suggestions about it were rash. I still think that in the long run, I might come up with a way to make flaws work more like traits and to give the players a more active in expressing the shadow elements of their characters. I don't think that this is againgst the spirit of the game, and I would certainly not do it to prevent any feelings from getting hurt (rules can do little about that, anyay), but only because I prefer certain styles of play to others.

That's a fair point. It would have been really beneficial to have more suggestions and/or tips for novice LMs on how to introduce/explain the Shadow/madness rules and (more importantly) the context for those rules, as well as how to play it out.

Properly explained, I would think most players would be along for the ride (if not actively driving the madness car!*) for their bouts of madness. If the setting and context for those rules aren't properly explained, or worse, if it's a malicious LM, it could be distinctly un-fun.

But we don't play with malicious LMs, not more than once anyway!


*Note: inside joke from when my friend used the Zombie horror TOR variant rules from this forum:

http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?tr...&showtopic=3234

I was the gangster trying to speed away from the group in my bout of madness.