Hey guys,

I'm a little lost as to how encounters work. Usually in the past, one roll usually takes care of the social interaction, but it appears that TOR is big on the tolerance level. I am having a hard time grasping it. Are the players rolling as they roleplay? Why are there limits at all? I guess I'm asking, is when are the players or player rolling during the social interaction and how do you gauge a successful encounter? If they fail one roll, is it over for them?

Can someone give me an example?

Best Guidelines I have found to be in the "Preliminary Rolls" document provided by Francesco - see the Resources page on this forum for a discussion on Setting Tolerance and using Insight during Introduction and Interaction phases, but you should also use the Additional Encounter Guidelines in Tales From Wilderland:

ADDITIONAL ENCOUNTER GUIDELINES
Tales from Wilderland introduces a new way for the
Loremaster to evaluate the performance of the company
during an encounter. In addition to the rules for Tolerance,
the Loremaster is advised to keep track of the number of
successful rolls achieved by the player-heroes during an
Encounter’s Introduction and Interaction stages.
At the end of an encounter, the total number of successful
rolls achieved by the company can be used to determine
its consequences. Every successful roll counts for one,
while a great success equates to two successful rolls and
an extraordinary result to three successful rolls.
Most adventures contained in this book present the
consequences of an encounter as a tiered table. Just
compare the number of successful rolls the company
achieved along the episode with the given entries.
First entry (usually corresponding to 0-1 successes): The
encounter can barely be considered a success. Something
didn’t go as well as hoped, or the companions got what
they were looking for but at the price of some unexpected
complication.
Second entry (usually 2-3): The companions achieved
the goal they set for the encounter, but nothing else.
Third entry (usually 4-6): As above, but the companions
succeeded beyond their expectations, and some additional
positive consequence is added to their reward.
Fourth entry (usually 7 or more): As for the second and
third entries, but the company succeeded admirably and
the outcome of the encounter is surprisingly positive.
The number of entries and their numerical ratings used
in the adventures generally conform to that given above,
but may vary slightly from encounter to encounter. These
guidelines are meant to be applied as rigidly or loosely as
required, to conform to the play style of the group.

An example from my Adventure: A Kidnapping in Umbar in my sig below:

The Ambassador

A lowly ranked noble from a minor family in Western Gondor, as is usual for those Gondor sends as ambassador to Umbar, as it is very much a thankless task - he is expected to please both King Tarondor and Umbar's Captains, an almost impossible situation, which means that few ambassadors to here last very long. He has done surprisingly well so far, having been in the post for two years. This emergency is exactly the situation he has nightmares about, and knows that he will probably be recalled unless the Prince can be found soon. He is hoping that the PC's impress him - he will open up more if he feels he can trust the PC's, revealing the secret meeting that took place about a week before (and details about keeping a spy on Prince Elatar and what he knows of Lord Borathor & the other Captains), otherwise he will only reveal that they were due to have a meeting there the previous evening on Lord Borathor's instigation, as per the table of successes below.

SET TOLERANCE
Ambassador Celin is looking for wise, discerning characters so initial Tolerance is set at the Highest Wisdom, +2 because he does need the characters' services, -1 if any elves are in the party ("Elves, what were you thinking bringing elves down here??").

Evaluating the Encounter
Every successful roll during the Introduction & Interaction stages counts for one success, a great success counts two and an extraordinary success counts for three successes. A successful Insight (TN 14) will reveal some of Celin's thoughts, and that Courtesy is the best skill to use (being a noble Dunedain with many wars behind him he has little use for either 'muscleheads' or 'silvertongues' as he calls them).

Introduction

The characters will be introduced to the Ambassador by his servant, a native Sakalani named Abir (and very loyal to the Ambassador). Celin is small in height for a Dunedain, being only 5'8", a bit rotund (although not like Lord Borathor), and is balding, with only a few wisps of gray hair, plus a short grey beard. His whole demeanour will be of a very worried man.

0-1 successes "It seems that someone may have overestimated your capabilities. I will send a guard to accompany you during your investigations for your protection as Umbar can be a dangerous city for the newly arrived, and I strongly recommend that you start your investigations by seeking the services of the Junior Guard Captain here (I forget his name), you can find him usually at the Guard Headquarters. My servant Abir will see to any other needs you have- Good-day."
The Ambassador is unimpressed with the PC's and privately thinks they will come to a sticky end unless he gives them a guard, so he will send with them one of his loyal guards (Turin), who he knows can be relied upon to keep the PC's out of the worst mischief and to give him reliable reports. He is only prepared to give them a small purse = 1 Treasure point, and only volunteers the information that he was due to meet with Lord Borathor & the Prince at the Villa the previous evening on Lord Orator's instigation. He will now start setting up another investigative team (which will include magical detectors) for when the PCs inevitably fail.

2-3 successes "I can see that you have not been in Umbar for very long. If you wish I can send a guard with you to assist you with your investigations, and you should seek out the services of one Adsumeir, who is the Junior Guard Captain of the city, you can find him at the Guard Headquarters."
He will give each PC a small purse = 1 Treasure point and the information as above.

4-5 successes "You seem to know how to deal with this situation. What you should know is that the three of us (Lord Borathor, the Prince and myself) met at the villa at the same time last week for an initial discussion over the Harnen border, and had agreed to rendezvous there again last night. I strongly believe that whoever is responsible knew about our rendezvous and thus must have been present at the villa the week before."

The ambassador is impressed by the PCs, so is willing to do a bit more to aid them, including giving them a letter of introduction to meet with Lord Borathor. He will also say that his resources are 'at the PCs disposal', and will pay for all expenses incurred by the PCs during their stay, and provide passes for Upper Umbar.

6 or more " I am no longer surprised at the success of your last mission, I am just thankful that you men are here at this time. I and my staff are completely at your disposal for this mission."

The ambassador is thanking all the gods that the PCs are here to take care of things, and he feels that he can trust them completely in this matter. So he will mention not only as above for 4-5, but also that he had kept a spy on Prince Elatar but as he has heard nothing recently fears that the spy is now dead (which is true). He will provide the PC's with a good house for them to stay at in Upper Umbar, including the necessary passes for Upper Umbar, and insist that the PC's pay for nothing whilst here, and will accompany them in person to meet Lord Borathor. Later in the adventure he will be regretful that he has to take the PC's off 'finding the true prince'.

The rules as RAW (p.163 of Adventurer's book & p.51 of Loremaster's Book) say that the Tolerance Rating = no.of maximum failed rolls allowed to a fellowship for a particular encounter, usually equal to highest Valour or Wisdom, but I have found these additional sources to be most helpful in explaining how to judge encounters. The best way to consider an encounter is that it is like a Prolonged action test, which ends either the Tolerance Rating is obtained and/or the PC's decide to leave.

Robin s.

thank you, that is a great example for the introduction. but now, what about the interaction? Does the Tolerance reset and a whole new converation/interaction begin?This is where I get lost. I'm so used to doing a certain way in other games that I need to completely break it down to build it up with a different system. Thank you for your help!

First - that was a commendable job of detailing the rules as seen in action with ideal narrative to support it.

Perhaps I can help put the pieces together for you. Try this out (assuming we are still using the above example for the Encounter).

1. Set Tolerance - factoring in predjudices and/or favorable conditions; and have a predetermined tiered set of successes.

2. Narrate the setting to the players, introduce the situation.

3. Ask the players (who are present) if they are trying to deduce something about the person/situation (a la Insight skill test). Success = allowing the player to know what strategy would work best - in this case Courtesy. As a dignitary my guess is that he would not take well to being Awed, or Persuaded. You should have some idea what to do if a player doesn't know to try Courtesy and uses something else that he may not appreciate.

4. After Insight ask the players what each of them intends to do:
a_) Player one introduces himself and is using Courtesy extend his well-wishes and offers of help
b_) Player two, knows that Courtesy and diplomacy is not his forte', so he opts to remain mum for this encounter
c_) Player three wants to regale the man with a Song about their travels to impress the man
d_) Player four wants to Inspire him - using an auto-success via his Storytelling Distinctive Feature
e_) Player five uses Courtesy, to assure that they are true of heart and trustworthy.

5. Roll Dice.
a_Succeeds. (1 success)
b_No dice- not participating
c_Failure with Song skill check - ambasador not impressed
d_LM feels this is appropriate; adds another success. (2 successes so far).
e_Courtesy receives Great Success (4 successes).

6. Now that dice are rolled, Narrate and talk in character - using the results of the dice to guide the conversation - those that fail should describe things not going so well. Those who succeed should have the LM roleplay the response accordingly.

7. LM now resolves the encounter referrencing his tiered responses to the number of successes the players had.

(You can as LM allow for a second round of conversation); perhaps the diplomat brings up something and wants them to continue to talk. You could rule that the failed song person has already blown his chances to make any more impact; allowing just three players in the next round. - Follow Steps 4-7 again (obviously the more players the better chance they will have more successess; so small parties may need multiple rounds of conversation).

Following these steps this way prevents and endless back and forth repetition that goes on forever until they fail or succeed enough. Essentially you don't just continue talking until they reach "Max successes"; you pre-determine if you're going to resolve it all in the one round, or not, and then at the of that pre-determined time, you're either going to have impressed him or not.

(As a house Rule, during Step 3, I allow a Great Success to add 1 success dice to any check made later in the encounter - 2 for extraordinary.) Failure = No obvious knowledge. (As a house Rule, I account an Eye = Hazard; meaning that at some point, some mishap happens during the conversation that must be overcome with another type of social skill like a Travelling Hazard; there was a great writeup in another thread about treating Roleplaying Encounters like Travel Checks. I suggest perhaps trying these out only after you've become familiar and comfortable using the normal steps above.)

Good luck.

That's a really nice walk-thru, Robin. Thanks!

I think our group's avoidance of the Encounter rules come from wanting to run it as a back-and-forth conversation, rather than a pre-structured script. That creates two issues:

1) The players don't know that there's extra stuff to get, so stop talking when they've reached their minimal goal, and

2) I don't know what resistance each roll is supposed to be overcoming because they're defined as getting bonuses rather than, as elsewhere, overcoming obstacles.

I think I'd prefer an Encounter system that listed the NPC's suspicions, interests and desires. Each would require a different roll to beat, with different arguments and skills, and then depending on the total number of successes, the NPC would react positively or negatively.

That way as LM I can roleplay from the IC perspective of the NPC rather than a plot perspective of what the PCs might be able to acquire, and the players aren't roleplaying blind about something they can't know in advance.

Here's how I see things...

First, remember that the encounter rules are only used to track the progress and consequences of social episodes under the following conditions:

"When the company meets an individual worthy of note, or the companions are taking part in a social event that can be influenced by their behaviour, the current episode is going to unfold around an encounter sequence (AB 163).

So...

1. The companions must be meeting an individual worthy of note, or

2. The companions must be part of a social event that can be influenced by them (I have taken "event" to mean a formal meeting of sorts).

The Loremaster's Book explains further, "When the company meets one or more Loremaster characters that do not qualify immediately as enemies, an encounter occurs (LB 51)." Also, "Adventurers...usually have an objective in mind. Sometimes, this goal is in conflict with the intentions of the people they meet. When this happens, the Loremaster sets up a Tolerance rating for the encounter, indicating the maximum number of rolls that the companions may collectively fail before their behaviour puts an end to their chances of getting further assistance or cooperation (LB 52)."

3. The companions must be meeting one or more Loremaster characters that do not immediately qualify as enemies.

4. The companions must have an objective that conflicts with the people they are meeting.

Therefore, the encounter rules are used in situations where the companions are meeting one or more Loremaster characters who are not clearly enemies, but with whom the companions have a conflict of goals. Even so, it is possible they could influence these people who are often individuals worthy of note.

If the situation fits that statement, then I set up a Tolerance rating according to the encounter rules in order to measure when the heroes stop having influence.

Let's say that a group of travelling dwarves are meeting Beorn for the first time and they are trying to influence him to provide shelter and food for the night before heading on their way to the Misty Mountains to fight Wargs and Goblins. Since Beorn prizes Valour, the basic Tolerance rating will be based on the highest Valour among the Dwarves. Let's pretend that is a 2. Beornings are prejudiced against Dwarves, however, so the basic Tolerance rating is modified by -1 and adjusted down to 1. This means as soon as they fail more than 1 roll, they stop having influence. Better make a good impression!

When Beorn says gruffly, "Who are you and what do you want?" the dwarves decide to allow the leader of their company to make a roll of Awe to introduce everyone and their intentions of killing Wargs and Goblins in the Misty Mountains.

If the roll goes well, Beorn is likely to say, "Come inside and get warm and tell me more about your quest." If it does not go well, he remains gruff with the dwarves and asks the spokesman further questions with suspicion. He must either use Awe again, or try Courtesy, or Riddle, depending on his approach. If he fails a second roll, the Tolerance will be exceeded and Beorn will be very suspicious of them, but he may still allow them to sleep the night, but under careful watch. And he won't provide protections for them once they leave first thing in the morning.

Once a successful introduction has been made, the interaction phase begins. The Loremaster allows for dialogue back and forth between Beorn and the spokesperson. Paying attention to what is being said, the Loremaster suggests what kind of tasks the players are proposing by their words (or they may already know, according to their goals).

For example, a spokesman may say he wants to observe or evaluate Beorn before saying more. The Loremaster tells him to make a roll of Insight to see if his listening skills are paying off. If he succeeds, he can use Persuade to make points of discussion (possibly by telling Beorn a tale the way Gandalf did in The Hobbit). While he is doing that, there can be dialogue and comments back and forth. If the spokesman wants to ask Beorn questions to gather useful information, he can use Riddle, and the Loremaster can speak accordingly. The dwarf may also use Song to garner Beorn's approval (basically trying to impress him).

The interaction phase can last as long as everyone would like, but successes are only counted until the Tolerance rating has been exceeded. It should usually only take 2-3 successes during an entire encounter to achieve the goal of the player-heroes without any complications. Remember, the individual(s) being encountered are NOT enemies and are likely to respond kindly if only in a limited capacity. The Loremaster's Screen suggests 4-6 successes for the companions to succeed beyond expectation with added reward and 7+ successes for an admirable effort that is surprisingly positive in some way.

For social episodes that do not require the encounter rules, I allow the use of personality and custom skills for limited purposes. It may be possible to Persuade an enemy to drop his weapon, for example, but that same enemy will not give up any important information no matter what the heroes try. Each situation is a little different, but a Tolerance rating is never used in these episodes.

I could run the Encounter rules successfully with only 1 Tolerance, but that situation has never come up. In the situation you describe my current group would go in with a Tolerance of 7 (Beorning spokesman with Noble Armour, Standing of 1 and Valour 3).

And the players don't know what bonus stuff they might get if they do well, so there's no tension when they only get the minimum.

Based on the rules as written and how the encounter rules are used within many of the adventures, I don't think, the underlined bit is a correct assumption at all. I think it's more to do with a Loremaster character 'testing their worthiness' rather than having conflicting goals.

Well, you can inject such clues into your narrative and when playing NPCs.

For instance, when I ran the encounter with Beorn in "Kinstrife and Dark Tidings", as Beon, I said something along the lines of: "Hmmm. I am not sure you are worthy of the boons I have to offer or even of the task I have in mind... What can you do or say that will prove to me that you are?"

Those kind of comments more than hint that there's something to be gained in such an ecounter and as the PCs achieve more and more successes (or use up Tolerance) you can gradually temper the NPCs tone and responses accordingly which directly shows how their attitude is changing and evolving based upon their actions/dice-rolls.

Rich, the underlined bit is a restatement of the core rules as written. "Sometimes, this goal is in conflict with the intentions of the people they meet. When this happens, the Loremaster sets up a Tolerance rating for the encounter..." (LB 52) But at the same time, I agree that 'testing their worthiness' is a valid application of the rules that has been included in Tales from Wilderland.

All this means is that when the companions meet someone who has different goals in mind (or they have the need to be impressed), the player-heroes will need to use skills to influence them in some way.

If they had met an obvious ally with the same goals, there would be no need for Tolerance, as they would have no need to impress or persuade, etc.

Ovid, I understand how very high Tolerance seems awkward. Last night my group met with Dodinas Brandybuck and had a Tolerance rating of 6. That's 2 for the Elf with Valour, 1 for the Hobbit, and 3 extra because Dody needed them for the assignment. The encounter was all about making a good impression, because once they found out about the assignment, they were all in of course.

What was awkward was knowing when to stop rolling. A Tolerance rating encourages player-heroes to keep making suggestions and rolling until they exceed it and then add up their successes for the result. However, with a 6 Tolerance, that seemed ridiculous, especially because one player was the spokesman and he was running out of things to say.

I am wondering if there is a way to redefine Tolerance. Right now it means the total number of failed rolls allowed. If it were switched to mean the total number of rolls allowed (to a minimum of 1), that might fix the awkwardness of things and put some parameters around the mechanics of encounters.

I would also like to see special rules for failing with an Eye (either the encounter ends or there is some kind of gaffe or hazard to overcome).

If Tolerance meant the total number of rolls allowed, everyone would know when to stop rolling (similar to a set amount of Travel rolls during a journey). In this way, if one person were the spokesman, I would allow him to choose his approach for Introduction and then for Interaction if enough rolls were allowed. The Introduction would only require 1 successful roll to move on to the Interaction. If there were more rolls allowed, I would let him choose one skill if he wanted and make the remaining number of rolls with it (or he could choose different skills). So, if the Tolerance were 6, he would need 1 successful roll for the Introduction to move onto Interaction. If he succeeded, he could choose one skill or multiple skills for Interaction and roll 5 times total. In any case, there would only be 6 total rolls between Introduction and Interaction. Then, he would add up the total successes and still use the guidelines as given on the Loremaster's Screen. The dialogue and back-and-forth could happen simultaneously or after the rolling.

I think I am going to playtest that idea and see where it goes.

<Double post due to "server busy" message>

Aye. I'm not always sure that some of the statements in the RAW are particularly helpful to people. This one is a prime example as in specific examples of how the Encounter mechanics have been used its more often about testing the PCs rather than being in conflict with them. There's a subtle but significant difference.

I thought you would but I thought it was best raising the point as part of this debate.

Again, that's something lacking in the RAW.

I've always interpreted the encounter rules as simply continuing the natural flow of the conversation UNTIL it naturally concludes. Obviously reacting to successes and failures but never extending it artificially just to use up Tolerance. For me Tolerance is "how many lives you get in the encounter", not "how long the encounter lasts". I don't think there should be any hard and fast rules for Tolerance with determining the encounter length (beyond it potentially ending prematurely if all tolerance is used up) but the rules/guidelines should make it clear with regards to this and what I've said above about encounter length and its natural development/course as above.

Which is exactly why it shouldn't have anything to do with determining encounter length and should just determine the number of allowed failures.

I don't think so. It would still feel awkward extending conversations to allow for rolls based upon the Tolerance score. Let the ecnounter follow a more natural course and just keep Tolerance for determining when successes are no longer counted or the conversation comes to an end as the individual (or group) in question tires of the discussion/debate.

Hazards could be fun.

Conversations don't follow a set course like journeys do so I don't think the comparison is a smart one and would be restirictive and artificial. The problem is that travel rolls are based on a measurable point A to point B with fatigue rolls in between. Conversations simply don't exist in the same space and can't really be framed as such. They last until they last, based on interactions. The way you're proposing is to have a fixed number of rolls but what if the conversations naturally concludes before then or beyond that point? It seems far too much of an artificial construct that you're attempting to fram an encounter in - which I'd avoid as I think it will limit player freedom in RPing.

It's better I think to let the natural RPing of the group determine the length of an encounter with the results of rolls determining the reactions/responses within the encounter and Tolerance merely representing how many failures the encounter can 'absorb' before it ends prematurely. If those aren't used up then simply let the encounter conclude naturally - ie, when everyone has said what they wanted to say and there is nothing more left to discuss (with social actions called for during such interaction). If you fix a number based on tolerance to these rolls then people will struggle to hit that number - ie, they may have more ideas/queries/etc or less but very rarely will they match the magic number you're proposing.

Hi Crimso,

Lots of good information here already but it may be over-complicating things for you so I'm going to get back to your opening post and answer your questions directly...

Are the players rolling as they roleplay?
Yes. At each natural point in the conversation I ask the players what they want to do, let them roll the dice, and then role-play the results (ie, success/failure/etc) of the dice roll. Just like you would in any other part of the game.

Why are there limits at all? I guess I'm asking, is when are the players or player rolling during the social interaction and how do you gauge a successful encounter?
Roll when you or the players want to roll - ie, it's at a point where the PCs or your NPC are trying to do something significant in the interaction (eg, get someone to agree to something, tell a convincing lie, impress them with a story, etc).

A successful encounter is measured by the number of successes accrued during the encounter. Count them up and compare them against any targets that you had set (or the adventure you're running has set).

Think of the encounter as an extended action. That's all it is.

If they fail one roll, is it over for them?
Only if the Encounter Tolerance was 1 before they failed the roll.

Every failed roll within an encounter uses up 1 point of Tolerance. Think of it as the number of allowed failures in an Encounter.

In simple terms it's how annoyed or bored or angry the NPC is getting with the PCs. If it reaches zero during the conversation then the encounter fails and the PC reacts accordingly. If the conversation naturally concludes without using up Tolerance then see how many successes they've obtained vs the target successes as described above.

It's a good idea to roleplay the behaviour of the NPC based on the current Tolerance score (so it will evolve over the course of the extended interaction as failures occur), that way the players have some clues as to how the encounter is progressing. If Tolerance starts high (eg, 5 or more) I generally have the NPC as behaving amiably and friendly towards the PCs. At 3 or 4 they're somewhat neutral. At 2 they are getting upset/annoyed/bored. At 1 they are pretty much ready to cut the conversation short or may even be hostile/angry with the PCs. At 0, that's it! I'm done here! Conversation over! Go away!

.
.
.

Hope that helps.

So far this is a wonderful thread with lots of good info; a lot of helpful info and though-provoking hints that have really sparked ideas for me, too.

Here are some various points:

@ Rich & JRT : Whether it's an obvious opposition (Thranduil not wanting to lend assistance for instance) or PCs merely needing to impress (a la the Beorn situation Rich suggested needing to feel why he should impart boons) these are BOTH various ways of being "conflicting goals" The PCs want to impress Beorn and prove their worth, Beorn is skeptical and not convinced they are worthy. This is "conflict" though more subtle in goals. So the verbiage of the RAW applies universally as far as I can tell; just that one is more obvious of a conflict while the other is more passive-aggressive conflict.


@ JRT: love the idea of hazards. I read an earlier thread from months ago from you that there was some social hazards and a skill test to recover from it - that we have used; and I feel that it can also be elaborated on.

@ Rich: I agree with the more flowing type conversation - and reasons to avoid JRT's ideas of constricting the encounter withing the confines of the checks. However, for some players, JRTs ideas are more helpful to provide good solid parameters, a sort of "Optional style" for players/LMs who struggle with good use of ad libbed narration, and dialogue. Obviously you're very fluent and good with such roleplaying as I am, but not all are comfortable or graceful with it, and those are the people that find the RAW lacking structure and pliability. JRTs ideas I feel go a long way to help give that structure to those in need.

@ Rich: LOVED your comment of how Beorn "teased" the PCs with wanting to grant boons. I have applied that style of dialogue a few times, but it never really clicked to use it as a tool to imply to the PCs that there are more to gain.....I will definitely make greater use of it whenever it applies.



FINALLY, since Tales of the Wild was released and I read it, and having reviewed the new tendencies used in social encounters regarding tiered rewards based on successes, I view Tolerance - NOT when the encounter FAILS: but when the encounter ENDs. Similar, yes; but the difference is once Tolerance is met, the encounter is over essentially, and I don't consider the encounter a "failure" I just add up the number of successes that occurred during the conversation before Tolerance was met, and cross-reference that with the table of possible rewards.

So essentially we do some back and forth discussion and dice rolls / skill tests done when needed, but I only allow new dice rolls to be made when something NEW is brought up. Therefore, players aren't stacking up successes going over the same comments in a circular conversation. They can mention how they defeated the troll in the swamp all they want - it really only make an impact once.

This allows a conversation to end naturally - when they have nothing further NEW to say, OR when Tolerance is met, and the NPC simply calls a halt to the conversation in some way, and offers the PCs any applicable rewards based on the table of possibilities in the text (for the store bought adventures) or whatever the LM had in store for home-written encounters. Furthermore, if the PCs are so successful that they've already earned the highest tier of success/rewards, the NPC can call a halt to conversation at a natural point like to the tune of something like "You had me at 'Hello'."

Yeah, I do agree with you but I don't think that the other option (ie, needing to impress) is an obvious conflict in the true sense of the word so the RAW is misleading in that respect which is why I think it needs clarifying. It shouldn't have used the wording of 'conflict' at all. Best to keep to terms like "something at stake" or "something to be gained from the interaction". Those cover things better in my opinion.

I'm not sure it would succeed. I believe being more restirictive in construction of encounters won't aid people, it will actively hinder and confuse when their encounters don't fit into the tightly defined structures James is proposing. It's better in my opinion to free people up. I don't think adding more rules (in this instance) will do that at all. Better to provide support and examples of how the current system works, especially Tolerance, which I think we are doing really well here without adding confusing and limiting rules as I believe they would be. I'll be interested to see what James' comes up with if he decides to progress with it but I'll definitely be cynical to it and will stress test his proposals!

Thanks!

Another way of doing it is just to show the players how Encounters work with regard to degrees of success and extra rewards - not specific encounters just the general structure. I've done both in my game, so the players understand the general structure and that encounters often offer levels of reward and then in the game I do things like I described above with Beorn. I don't see why a GM wouldn't let players know such things. It isn't spoiling the game as you aren't talking about a specific encounter but it's letting the players know how the tiers can work, then in-game you give them verbal clues and pointers if you feel the need.

Agreed. That's precisely what I've done.

And I've explained that once the conversation naturally has nothing further to say, OR a Tolerance level is met, the encounter comes to a close, and I will narrate a conclusion of what is gained/earned from the encounter.

Those are all points I agree with and are exactly as I run things.

I think the real breakdown here is the lack of examples and clarification in the RAW in the way we are doing here. Although I've not really learnt anything new here it's been reassuring to see that I've been following the Encounter rules as others have and has been a good discussion of them as well.

Aye.

The best we can do is provide examples of actual in play Encounters to share.

I will try and recall a couple of recent good ones and post them. And I'll be sure to take good mental notes of the next two that are to crop up in the next game I have scheduled this Friday.

One will be with a scouting party of elves from Thranduil's Hall who are directly under the supervision of the Prince of Mirkwood working in the western edges of Mirkwood to monitor orc activity from the mountains. The PCs are mostly likely to encounter them as they are exiting the forest when they're completing the Don't Leave the Path; but they may show up to assist during the tentacled horror encounter if that is going south for the PCs. That and the Hermit are the only things left in that adventure to complete. (The elves are added by me - but serve a greater reason as they foreshadow other events that I have plotted).

The next one will be with Dody at the Easterly Inn as it pertains to Stewed Hobbits adventure.

"Every failed roll within an encounter uses up 1 point of Tolerance. Think of it as the number of allowed failures in an Encounter."

This was my main take-away that I think I was looking for.

Remember though that it's not just that it's the tolerance that the NPC has for the encounter as people have referred to in previous posts.

I think what you have described above works perfectly with the core rules and how I first understood encounters before Words of the Wise was published. The new way to evaluate encounters, however, puts the emphasis on gaining as many successes as the player-heroes can in order to get the best outcome possible. In other words, keep rolling at least until you exceed Tolerance or gain 7+ successes. Can you try to force players from doing that? Yes. But they all know the guidelines for evaluating an encounter and they all know that the more successes they roll, the better results they will get. It's only natural. (By the way, Words of the Wise gives some excellent suggestions for the questions and statements of King Thranduil, which may be an important key for all encounters. Loremasters should prepare in advance a series of statements and questions that the heroes can interact with. Each statement could be followed by a reply and roll by the player-heroes. This would give them plenty of opportunities to roll and achieve the best results.)

If you begin with the understanding that the encounter rules are NOT meant for all conversations (encounters and conversations should not be confused to be the same thing), but only for meetings with important allies who the player-heroes are trying to influence or make a good impression upon, then you should also understand that an 'encounter' has a goal. Player-heroes start out at point A and they are trying to get to point D in their meeting with the Loremaster character. Point A represents a place of very little influence or impression and point D is a place of great influence or impression (which yields the greatest results). It does not matter how they get from point A to point D, but they definitely want to get to point D if possible (if not, they will settle for point B or C, depending on what is within their reach). They are not following a set course in their conversation, but they will never get to point D if they don't take a certain amount of steps to get there.

Are you still following me?

So, if Tolerance sets the maximum number of rolls allowed in an encounter, it would represent the difficulty of getting from point A to point D with that particular Loremaster character when meeting with that unique Company. One group encountering that character may set the Tolerance at 2 rolls, while another group may set it at 5 rolls. Obviously, the group that gets 5 rolls will have a chance to get to point D, while the group that only gets 2 rolls will never get that chance, but may make it to point C with two great or extraordinary successes.

In this case: Point A (Narrow Success) = 0-1 Success, Point B (Ordinary Success) = 2-3 Successes, Point C (Great Success) = 4-6 Successes, and Point D (Extraordinary Success) = 7+ Successes.

Once the player-heroes have reached the Tolerance rating in rolls*, they cannot influence the Loremaster character any further (the encounter is effectively over), but they may continue in conversation (which does not need the encounter rules). More dice rolling can be done, but it does not affect the evaluation of the official encounter.

*They can make less rolls if they wish. It depends on how much influence or impression they want to display.

If Tolerance were to be defined the way I described, the only thing that would change would be this: Tolerance would start with a base rating of 1 and could never be modified lower than that. All other calculations for Tolerance remain soundly intact and making perfect sense.

I am going to test these ideas (of course), but I have a feeling that for my players, it may make a world of difference.

Hi James, interesting stuff and I do understand where you're coming form although I think the issues can be addressed by approaching encounters in a different way...

I'm not trying to stop players from doing that. If they can still come up with relevant queries/actions/discussion points that move the encounter forward then they can keep doing that but when the encounter has naturally concluded any player that wishes to continue making rolls just because there is still Tolerance left to use up or to gain further successes is, quite frankly, not engaging with the spirit of the rules or acknowledging when an encounter has naturally concluded. If people think that rules should be written to head off such 'abuse' then that's fine but I don't see the need.

What I would say is that although I like addition to the encounter rules that was made (ie, with regards to number of successes determining different tiers of rewards) I think it's been applied a little haphazardly. Often it looks like the writers have tried to shoe horn encounters into these success tiers when there really isn't enough meat in the encounter (ie, points where you'd expect a dice roll) to generate the amount of successes for the higher rewards. I think they'd have been better off structuring the system as different tiers but allowing more flexibility in the number of successes at each tier. For example, like you've described, have:

Narrow Success
Ordinary Success
Great Success
Extraordinary Success

... But don't assign any success/number ranges. That way the amount of successes you attach to each tier is determined by the content of the encounter. Also, some tiers could be removed if there weren't enough 'shades' within the encounter to allow for those result variations.

I quite agree. I often read encounters and think "there simply aren't enough points to this interaction where players can roll to stand any kind of decent chance of generating the successes for the upper tier rewards". So, my above comments relate to how I'd approach the problem, whereas you're approaching it differently. I'm not a fan of your way as I'd really want to maintain Tolerance as a direct measure of the NPCs attitude towards the interaction. I like using that to gauge their responses and general manner and I think shifting Tolerance to be used as a measure for the number of allowed rolls is losing a lot of what I like. YMMV and all that.

I've never thought otherwise! To be clear, just because I've used the word 'conversation' previously doesn't mean that I think the Encounter mechanics are used for all such interactions.

Yeah, I see what you're doing and I'll be interested to see how things go but I just don't think you're addressing a fundamental of encounters in that although there's always 'something at stake' they don't all require the same number of successes to achieve the best results, as each encounter doesn't always require the same number of rolls.

I therefore don't think Tolerance should set the number of rolls - as above, I think the 'tiers of success' should be determined by the content of the encounter. Obviously this can vary but as the 'what is at stake' bit of an encounter is always described the content of discussion and options can be extrapolated. And as I've stated above, the guidelines in some Encounters simply don't outline an encounter where many of the higher tiers can be reached. I'm not saying they should be easy to get to but based on the descriptions/guidelines of some encounters players would need to make some fluky rolls to stand any real chance of getting to those levels.

If you set Tolerance based on 'Encounter content' (for want of a better expression) then I could get behind what you're doing a bit more but you're not as I understand it - due to this and other comments:

... So you aren't changing how Tolerance is derived just how it's used. If you changed how it's derived to match the meat/content of the encounter then I think you'd be onto something but I think my approach keeps Tolerance as an indicator of the NPC's attitude/patience (which I really like) and uses a sliding success scale based on encounter content.

I'll be really interested to see how you get on and I'm open to being convinced by what you have planned.

I've already used what I've described above to great success just by altering the success numbers for each tier when an encounter is lacking content but is still 'competitive' and therefore uses the encounter mechanics.

I do really think though that there need to be more worked examples of Encounters and in written adventures if you need 7+ successes for a top success then writers need to describe more than 2 actions that can be used in the encounter (which goes back to why I apply that sliding scale)! Maybe more examples of encounters that have varied tiers of success would also be helpful to show that there is flexibility within the system. I know from queries on here that many posters simply don't 'get' how they work. With more and better examples I'm sure that wouldn't be the case. Perhaps there's some kind of "Book of Encounters" that we could work on and publish in order to help others - we could even put in different approaches so people could pick the ones that best suits their style of play? It'd be a lot of work but I'm sure it's achievable.

Phew! Bit of a verbal assault there - sorry if it's too long!

Many times in my mind, I've conceived the notion that many such encounters (that require many many successes) could be based on "more than one encounter" with the same NPC/entity - specifically for encounters meant to "measure the worth of the PCs" (as opposed to encounters for immediate need/response to a pressing request that the NPC is at odds with). I too feel as you do that the higher level tiers are sometimes unobtainable....in the course of one naturally flowing conversation - without players "reaching" for additional rolls just of that sake of trying to reach higher goals. (As JRT was trying to avoid).


Think of the supervisor (of a different department) at work, working on a project that you're not involved with, but are forced to interact with routinely. Perhaps the first two or three such encounters with the guy, you make little impression, but after a while, he eventually sees the greatness that you bring to the table, and he begins to have a great respect of you - eventually offering you an elevated position in his department (7+ successes).

This would essentially mean that for the first few run-in's you only "unlock" the lower tier rewards - you get a cup of his exotic roast coffee, he buys lunch for you at a lunch meeting, he asks to borrow you a bit more from your own boss (and boring routine) until ultimately he says, "I've been looking for a new Project Coordinator to oversee our new LEAN project....."


How does this relate to TOR?

Lets take the encounter with Dody at the Easterly Inn. The "ENCOUNTER" officially begins (according to the text) long after the PCs arrive at the inn after Dody has had a chance to gauge the PCs personality and bring up the nerve to go and confront them with his dilemma.

Lets redesign this - earlier in the text, it talks about how the PCs can impress the people in the Inn with SONG etc, and may perhaps even impress Dody. Essentially - from the moment they begin interacting with him - any and all Skill Tests are already working in their favor (or against if they bumble it up.)


Later, when Dody approaches the PCs privately, earlier successes/Failures carry over.



I have an encounter planned as the PCs exit the west end of Mirkwood via the Elf-Path - at the conclusion of Don't Leave the Path (scheduled later tonight in fact) - with a detachment of an elven scouting party that is under the direction of Legolas (who won't be among the NPCs that approach the party this time). I plan to allow the results of that encounter to add to the encounter later with the elf-lass they later meet Legolas and Irime in Those Who Tarry No Longer. So maybe Irime doesn't bequeath anyone with Elf-Friend (yet), but they may earn it at a later time.


Obviously the downside to this is that there's a bit of record keeping for the LM, but the upside is that the encounters don't have to be molded, packages, and forced into a bottle. Maybe the PCs don't earn ALL of their respect....yet....but they may with repeatedly impressing them. The only thing that would change is likely the Tolerance would be increased if they happen to increase standing between one encounter to the next.


This then brings up a cool idea - awarding PCs an additional Trait/Distinctive Feature (bring the total to 6 that a PC can have I think).

1) PCs can earn 1 additional distinctive feature or trait when the LM feels it is earned via the adventures and story.
2) PCs who earn more than 1 can choose to employ any one of those available, and can opt to swap during a Fellowship Phase just as they can with any other.

Anyways this is just a side-thought. My main point I was making was helping to more naturalize encounters to make the rewards/earning not feel forced.

So last night we played much of the 'Kinstrife' section from Kinstrife and Dark Tidings and I tried applying the Tolerance rules. Spoilers for that adventure from here on out.

The previous session, the players had royally screwed up their arrival in the village by lying about why they were there. I'd forgotten to give them a Shadow Point for that (after numerous sessions of the game, I'm still having trouble keeping track of all the fiddly little bits of the system), but they were allowed to stay in a hut until the next day. Essentially, Ava did the minimum necessary to meet the laws of hospitality.

When yesterday's session started, I faced the problem of how to continue the adventure. The scenario gives a clumsy work-around, but I didn't want to go that direction, so allowed the PCs to leave the hut but they would have to work to get much info from the villagers.

Beran the Beorning was first out, since he figured he'd have an easier time in a Beorning village. I gave him a choice to talk to generic villagers, and get the various rumours, or approach the woman he didn't yet know was Brunhild. As it turned out, he chose really, really wrong.

The narrative is lightly edited from Trotter's player's notes. I've added my perspective as the LM in the bits marked COMMENTARY.

Later, I ran the same encounter when the Bride decided to approach Brunhild at Rathfic's grave.

So, take-aways:

1. It took a mixture of poorly judged roleplaying and bad dice for Beran's player to fail his encounter so completely.

2. The second stab at the Brunhild encounter worked because the 'gains' were not successive. I had different bits of information which I could give depending on how the conversation went. There was no boon that could only be got with 5 successes after having got all the boons before. I got to choose which 'boons' were handed over when.

3. I fudged the last Tolerance point. I could have ended the conversation right there, but the clue about Oderic's route hadn't been got and given the effort involved in the encounter already and way the Bride's player had built rapport with Brunhild, I thought that was very unsatisfactory.

As for the idea of treating several meetings as a single encounter, I'm very much in favour of that. In practice I ended up doing that with Ava - the PCs got another chance to talk to her and I treated that as the same Encounter as the one they'd screwed up previously. I think that's also how I'll have to run the PCs' meeting with Irimë in Those Who Tarry No Longer, since there you're supposed to count successes for every individual and there's no way that's going to work in just one meeting.