I just noticed some things on table 3.3 of the new Loremaster's Screen that I have questions about.

#1. Why use Average successful rolls in the header row instead of Number of successful rolls? Is the use of the word 'average' supposed to indicate that the breakdown of the numbers on the table is the 'average' setting to evaluate the outcome of an encounter and for more difficult encounters, the numbers can be adjusted to a higher range? Otherwise, are the total number of rolls supposed to be counted (both successes and failures) and then averaged? (This seems odd.)

#2. Why label 0-1 as a 'Narrow Success'? If there were zero successes in an encounter, I would say that would be a disastrous failure, not a 'Narrow Success.'

To make encounters a bit more tense and fun, I think two things can be adjusted: the Tolerance rating and the Outcome table. Tolerance rating is already established through Wisdom or Valour and it can be easily adjusted through Additional Modifiers. However, table 3.3 seems extremely forgiving and therefore a bit moot.

In my experiences so far, 2-3 successes are very easy to achieve. This is due to the fact that most Tolerance ratings (for starting players no less) are set around 2-3 because of story elements (i.e. Radagast sends the heroes with a message for Thranduil, +1 Tolerance) and the fact that fellowships will have at least one member with a 2 rating in either Wisdom or Valour. For more experienced player-heroes, Tolerance ratings will grow even higher.

This means that they can fail 3-4 rolls before the encounter is effectively over. By the time they fail that many rolls, they normally have 5+ successes easily. Great and Extraordinary successes really impact the totals.

I'm not suggesting to change the mechanics; I think they are excellent! But, I would adjust the Outcome table a bit for an 'average' or 'Moderate' encounter. I think table 3.3 should be called the 'Very Easy' table.

3.3b Evaluating the Outcome of a 'Moderate' Encounter

• 0 successes, Disastrous Failure, Something bad happened and the objective was lost, -3 Tolerance next time
• 1-2 successes, Failure, The objective was lost, -2 Tolerance next time
• 3-4 successes, Narrow Success, Same as table 3.3, -1 Tolerance next time
• 5-6 successes, Success, Same as table 3.3
• 7-8 successes, Great Success, Same as table 3.3, +1 Tolerance next time
• 9+ successes, Great Success, Same as table 3.3, +1 Tolerance next time and TN 12 for all rolls

The 'Tolerance' modifiers are easy suggestions to illustrate the impact of the encounter on the companions' reputation with the host.

This was a sort of precaution. The mechanic for evaluating encounters is relatively young in comparison to the other mechanics. Also, I was a bit unsure about embracing a rigid rules approach in a field that many gamers regard as the domain of pure 'role-playing'. That's basically why the rules for encounters are closer to a set of guidelines than the rest of the game.

Francesco

The danger of that approach is that unless the GM is experienced enough to handle failure in a way to move the story forward, then an 'objective lost' Encounter could result in the game stumbling. Encounters shouldn't be written that way but, as TfW and other prewritten scenaris show, they often are.

Experienced GMs will obviously rectify this all by themselves, but it makes sense for C7 to cater for all GMs by providing base guidelines that will ensure the story moves on, having Encounters gauge the cost and consequence of the PCs actions. Sort of a 'Yes but' approach.

On saying that, if the Tolerance is exceeded before any successes were obtained, I would adjudicate this as "objective lost".

Encounters with an NPC that is essential to the plot must have some degree of success at the very minimum. These are NPC's that give clues and provide information or resources.

Consider Frodo's encounter with Aragorn at Bree. They had no reason to trust the mysterious 'Strider', but they took him as guide. Had they not done so, the Nazgul would likely have killed the hobbits and taken the ring, making The Fellowship of the Ring a very short book.

That sort of situation could all too easily crop up in game with a few bad dice rolls.

That's why you need to decide what the worst case scenario is. When meeting someone that is key to the story, the NPC will help even if they get the worst result, but the help may be just enough, nothing more.

But in an encounter that can go either way... the NPC may decide to attack in the worst case scenario, rather than assist.

So in some cases, 0 successes may result in violence, or at the very least, a new enemy.

And in others, 0 successes may mean you get a place to rest, but only bread and water to eat.

Hope this makes sense... there was beer in my diet tonight

Francesco, I fully understand a need for guidelines for those who really want to play social encounters according to the players' abilities to negotiate. However, because the game includes skills that quantify a character's social abilities, I think that encounter mechanics help to govern the results and bring meaning to the advancement of those skills. I don't feel that the mechanics detract from good roleplaying at all, I think they enhance it. They give suggestions to Loremasters and players for how to narrate the outcomes, but the creativity and specifics are still up to them.

I see a general philosophy divide as to what constitutes "good roleplaying." Some people may define good roleplaying as a player's ability to come up with clever ideas, figure out mysteries, or ask the right questions regardless of his character's statistics. Others (like me) would say good roleplaying is the ability to "play" a character as presented to him, similar to the way an actor plays a part in a movie. The actor himself may be a terrible negotiator, but his character is a sharp-tongued prosecutor. The quality of the "actor's" performance will be determined by how convincing he can deliver his lines, but remember, the lines were given to him and sometimes they are good enough to make a difference. I see an actor's lines like die roll results. The greater the skill level of a character, the better chance for a good line. The player just has to deliver his character's line. The more enjoyable this is, the Loremaster can award the player with a supplemental Experience point.

Anyway, to wrap it up, my opinion is that if players want to determine the outcomes of social encounters strictly on player performances, then there probably shouldn't be quantifiable social skills in the game.

In the case of Strider, I would say the encounter was with Frodo, not the other way around. Strider was on a mission to help the hobbits and he was successful.

This post has been edited by JamesRBrown on Sep 1 2012, 08:22 PM

Skywalker, so I think we can agree that 0 successes would be 'objective lost' at least.

Wow. I've heard of excluding the middle, but there are so many middles being excluded here, I think you've broken the laws of logic!

To be more specific: you might think social combat rules help roleplaying, others think that while some are helpful to give you a base off which to improvise, having too many is restrictive.

Some people like crunchy combat. Other people like it abstract.

Some people who like crunchy combat like their social mechanics abstract.

Some people who like abstract combat like crunchy social mechanics.

Some people who like abstract combat like abstract social mechanics.

And some people like things crunchy across the board.

See how that works? It's got sod all to do with philosophy and everything to do with taste.

You made me laugh! You are correct, I have left out a good amount of 'middle' in my comments, but I was trying to keep it short. I will go back and rethink my words. Maybe I can come back a bit more logical

It would also be interesting to study the words 'philosophy' and 'taste' more closely.

Well, for me philosophy has a stronger claim to consistency whereas taste justifies itself much more situationally, but this is probably a topic for another thread.

As for 'average' successes, shouldn't that be 'aggregate'? I know that's not what the RAW says, but there should be some down-side for exhausting someone's Tolerance, IMO. As it is, you can just keep rolling in the hope of getting a success until you exceed the Tolerance rating, when you have to settle for what you've got. By aggregating failures and successes, you make things more tactical: if every failure cancels a success, when do you push your luck or stop digging? That would also explain why 0 Successes are a 'narrow success': it's the minus numbers that denote failure.

Just throwing that out there: I don't have the LM Screen, so maybe this is already covered.

... Not having the Loremaster Screen either, but I think its evident that we need some kind of support document for explaining these new rules on the valid assumption that James is describing them in their entirety. I appreciate that they look like they reference the encounter results from TfW but we all have that book and yet we're discussing/reading areas that have us confused/perplexed here! At the very least we require some clarification.

This is why I do the rolls first, then get the players to narrate and roleplay the success or failure of their roll. Tonight, we had a failed Encounter (the initial roll blew the tolerance straight away) and the player played up the bungled courtesy roll in the conversation that followed. His character started a fight with a few well-aimed words.

Okay. Scratch my whole 'philosophy' discussion and just read the Roleplaying Encounters section on page 52 of the LB. It explains the issue I was trying to point out (somewhat) and uses the words 'taste' and 'style.'

There is NO debate from me concerning the fact that the encounters mechanics are more like guidelines than the rest of the rules. I understand the reasons for this perfectly. But, the guidelines themselves should be open for discussion to make sure they are meaningful and good guidelines for those who wish to use them.

To satisfy my own curiosity, are there any players on this forum that prefer to 'strictly' determine the quality of success of an encounter based on player performances around the table? In other words, you completely ignore dice roll results in favor of acting and so forth. For those that adjudicate case-by-case, can you give an example of when you overruled a dice result because of a player's performance?

Yes, that's how I would run it in my games, but I think the "Yes but" baseline is the right one for TOR for social encounters.

After thinking about this, I can see what you are saying. The player-heroes are heroic after-all and their 'non-enemies' are more than likely to provide some sort of help, regardless of their social graces.

Maybe I'll adjust the table 3.3 guidelines to look something like this for my games:

• 0, Failure, apply an optional -1 to -3 Tolerance modifier next time
• 1-2, Narrow Success
• 3-5, Success
• 6-8, Great Success
• 9+, Extraordinary Success

It reflects just a little more difficulty in achieving a Great or Extraordinary Success, which for me, makes encounters a little more exciting and social skill ranks a little more important. The key word is little.

For those who don't know, the actual table breaks the numbers down as: 0-1 Narrow Success, 2-3 Success, 4-6 Great Success, 7+ Extraordinary Success.

FWIW most combat encounters are designed on a "Yes but" basis

Personally, I am a bigger fan of the list being expressed as:

• 0, No Success
• 1-2, Success + Complication
• 3-4, Success
• 5-7, Success + Benefit
• 8+, Success + Benefit + something more like a boost to Standing

This may just be a case of defining what Narrow and Great Success mean. However, for my own game, Success is normally something clear from the PC's actions. In fact, unless the PCs have a clear idea of their objective I don't use the Encounter mechanic as I don't think its usable more widely to model all social interaction.

Trying to modify what Success means is difficult, but adding additional benefits or complications on top of Success is not.

hey all just some thoughts from me, as a LM of this game and 30 yrs exp as gm/dm of others.

i feel first you need to determine when its appropriate to call for a "mechanic" for roleplaying encounters; regardless of method to adjudicate (either freestyle roleplaying via players skill of negotiation/diplomacy, or a hard fast die roll vs static target number or some kind of hybrid).

Personally, i dont use a roleplaying resolution mechanic often and certainly not in every social interaction "how do you do" encounter. It only ever comes up when the scenario has the heros needing/ wanting something and the other party has some valid reason not to easily acquiesce.

if its something that the npc would do anyway but just needs a little budge of assurance dont bother with the mechanic. just let the player state his case and move forward as part of the dialogue. if its a simple obvious non important matter ("i need passage across this river and will pay you to take us across safely"). if the sailor has no reason to object no mechanic needed. on the other hand if the sailor is being asked to travel to unlawful or dangerous territory that he fears or perhaps he knows that the pcs are being hunted by the law or minions of shadow etc and balks at their request, then a mechanic is necessary.


Next adjudicate according to style preference. but keep these consistent whenever possible. Then as someone pointed out, you need to know your own interpretation of what "minimally successful" vs "successful but with complication". Do they mean the same? whatever you decide, be sure your players understand your interpretation and again be consistent.

It's worth noting at this point that if the story dictates that some measure of success is required to advance the story, then you shouldn't consider no success or failure as a possible result. Using the previous river crossing example, if the heros absolutely must get across the river and no other options exist perhaps "failure" equates to "he takes the pcs across the river but then reports it to someone associated with whomever is hunting them."


On to the other part of this discussion; which speaks to when or how often or which should take precedence (the freestyle roleplaying or dice rolling vs static target number), what i do is allow the player to express himself first.

"i want to talk him into this or that." and if he offers nothing more than that, then it is a telltale sign he is more comfortable just letting dice do the talking.

On the other hand if he begins by narrating and describing in detail or orating for himself in character then i will use what he says and compare that against what i know of the npc that theyre conversing with. if the player didnt say anything that the npc would have a problem with and was convincing i would consider that one success towards the goal and let the player know that he may be making progress and can take that as a standard success or chance a roll of the dice and possibly fail or get a better success and i may even lower the TN if the player was very convincing.

example

player: i approach the sailor on the dock and inquire about passage across the channel.
lm: the sailor looks frightened and eyes you suspiciously. its apparent he isnt excited about the idea. he says "arent you the group from Dale that stirred up trouble with the angmarin last spring?"
player: using my skill in awe i will reagale him with tales of who we are and that the angmarrin should not be feared that we have bested far worse than one measley man and i try to impress upon him that by helping us he is helping a greatly renown group of heroes.
lm: hmmm very convincing. youve piqued his interest and he nods a bit. You havent convinced him yet but he is listening. you can take an auto success for now or you can roll and risk removing that with a failure or possibly getting a better level of success.
player: i wont press my luck at this point.
lm: well he looks down at his feet as if ashamed and admits hes afraid of being confronted by the angmarin priest once he gets you you there and is accused of aiding you.
player2: i have courtesy skill trained and will use that.
lm: do you say anything specifically?
player2: i dont really know what to say my style is to let the dice speak. i rolled a great success.
lm: wow great. thats three successes only needing one more. after diplomatically presenting your cause smoothing over his concerns he looks a lot more at ease but asks cautiously if you can assure him that you werent followed to the docks.
player: once again impressing him with awe i remind him that we are the great heroes that infiltrated the orcs lair and rescued the blacksmith of dale. we are quite skilled in discretion and art of stealth.
lm: oooh great point. he seems very impressed and has a look of hope in his eyes. Youve certainly convinced him at this point. you can take this success or roll a dice for the chance of a better success and the point you made was so convincing i will lower the TN to 12.
player: i will roll and chance it. yes! i got a great success!
lm: awesome. the sailor is impressed and assures you that you can count on him. he hurries you aboard and ferries you across without delay or issue. Not only does he help you as you requested but when you depart he assures you he will stay for two days to assure you have a way back thanks to your high level of success.