Last night my brother and I tried to hash out the combat mechanics of the game in preparation for an upcoming chronicle. This dry-run brought to light some misunderstandings and pointed out some odd characteristics of the system.

Counter to the prevalent view in most RPGs that initiative is held by the agressor, this game seems to place defenders in that role, thus they "hold the initiate" to use the words in the rule books. To my way of thinking (definitely shaped by the aforementioned RPGs this seems backward).

I made the assumption that even Loremaster controlled beasties (in this case orcs) assumed stances. This led to the paradox that your defense and attack target numbers would be different creating a mobius strip-like loop with your attack number being different from what my stance shows and vice versa. After further reading in the Loremaster Book I learn that "monsters" can't/don't assume stances, so this gets around the problem. If this is correct it seems odd that players have this benefit, yet their enemies that seemingly have as much interest in survival as the players fail to use the same tactics in battle.

The mechanics of "damage" as it relates to Endurance and the handling of piercing attacks and wounds and resultant mortality are fairly clear cut. I find the danger level of combat and possibility of swift death to be appropriately high stakes for all parties involved.

If others can offer insights/corrections about the above observations I would appreciate it.

The rules are not something PCs and monsters are aware of in game, so the idea that they ignore them somehow is an odd way to look at it. Monsters have different special abilities to model those sort of tactics. So they do do them, just in a much easier way for the GM to manage mechanically and not slavishly following how the PCs operate.

I don't find this weird. In fact, I see it as excellent design in recognising the differences in how the player and GM operate at the table and writing the rules to manage that whilst giving the impression that the PCs and monsters operate on the same level in game.

I've run about 7 combats now (between the campaign and some one-shots). As the LM, I've found it very easy to manage my NPCs/monsters in the fights. The difference in the combat mechanics for PCs vs. antagonists is designed, I would say, to make the LMs job easier, and it succeeds at this nicely.

The initiative thing did throw me a bit at first, but honestly, is there any reason beyond "it has always been thus" for the attackers to go first? Its odd, but has become a complete non-issue for us by now. In fact, I bet if I asked my players, they would prefer the TOR method, since they are on the receiving end of attacks/ambushes more often than not

We did have a question come up in our last session as to whether antagonists get weary or not. As far as we can tell, they do not, which again simplifies my life as LM. There is a Dwarven reward of an axe that makes enemies weary, however.

I do agree about the danger level (we like it). So far, I've had only two PCs be wounded, and one knocked out due to Endurance loss, but the players have felt threatened in every fight.

John

Enemies get weary when they start a round without Hate points (LB65).

This makes enemy commanders crucial (goblin archers, for instance, are Craven and flee the battlefield when they lack Hate points!), and wise characters will try to target them first...

Thanks! I didn't find that during the session. That makes the "Intimidate Foe" action even more useful.

John

Another insight into the asymmetrical mechanics of the combat system might be that servants of the Shadow possess very little Free Will. In contrast, that freedom is the defining mark of the Free Peoples in Tolkien's writing. At different points in the books, servants of the Shadow can seem one-dimensional in their choices and actions when in fact there is a single over-riding Will manipulating their actions like a puppet master. When Sauron is strong individual expression of choice in the enemies of the Free Peoples wanes until it becomes nothing more than the single Will of the Enemy. When Sauron is weak, these same enemies exhibit more independence. Granted, not all creatures corrupted by the influence of Morgoth and later Sauron are servants of Sauron. However, all of them are in some way influenced by the hatred Morgoth felt (and later Sauron) towards all things free within Arda.

However, Tolkien keeps this from becoming boring and one-dimensional. Tolkien gives the Enemy's servants a good deal of personality, usually as an extension of their Master's hatred. They have a single purpose that is either the Enemy's designs steering their actions, or a corrupting and perverting influence of a dominant character trait. This last happens until the person or thing corrupted is more an expression of something gone horribly awry, a creature that is no longer free to live (in a self-determining way) but an extension of a gnawing hatred. In The Return, think of Denethor's fallen character as one of the most complicated examples of this...

While I won't say the game designers had this in mind when developing their asymmetrical mechanics. The way combat works in TOR beautifully reflects this: a seeming lack of freedom on the part of Adversaries coupled with Hate as a defining characteristic. The Hate that fuels the "personality" and uniqueness of an Adversary is the Hate felt by all creatures twisted by Shadow.

I play an Adversary's Hate attribute as a mark of how strong the Enemy's purpose (either Sauron's or the more ancient designs of Morgoth) comes out in their actions. You might say all Adversaries have one combat stance or attitude: a hate-inspired need to destroy. The higher the value the more aggressive the attitude. (In the C7TV interview with Dominic, he referred to combat stance as an attitude. Thinking of combat stance as an attitude rather than a position that you take on a battlefield helps in understanding/explaining the seemingly asymmetrical combat mechanics. The freedom player-heroes have in choosing a stance is matched by the single hate-inspired stance of an Adversary. So in fact, one might question whether the system is asymmetrical at all...?)

This is one of TOR's features that makes the game work for me better than any other Middle-earth roleplaying game. And as John pointed out above, it simplifies the mechanical side of a LMs role.

Best,
E

Thank you for the excellent examples Eluadin. The way you rationalize the differences between sides in a combat helps make more sense. John you make a good point about the initiative situation, just because it has been handled one way by all games doesn't require that to always be the case.

Thanks all for the illuminating insights.

Luke