In the LotR the only members of the Fellowship to have any armour were Gimli and Boromir (and at a stretch perhaps Aragorn might have had a leather shirt). Oh and Frodo's Mithral shirt of course.

I know later on, during the war they all don armour (including Legolas which many people seem to miss), but during their journey there is little in the way of protection for the Fellowship other than plot armour.

The same could be said of the Dwarves of Thorin's company as well, although the genral tone of the Hobbit is much different anyway.

I'm mainly asking those who've played TOR if it is advisible to steer players towards taking armour for their characters. Or is it possible to survive on wits (literally) alone?

My group has been using Athletics as a dodge skill (ie the number rolled is the TN attacker has roll) and its worked out quite well. Also we use character's weapon skill as a parry as well.

I advise players to choose some armor at least, but not a whole lot if they don't want to become Weary too easily. Protecting yourself from Wounds is critical though! In my opinion, a Loremaster should not try to protect heroes that have chosen not to wear armor. I would let the chips fall where they may and not feel bad, otherwise you nullify the difference between armor and no armor.

Personally, if I were a player and not a Loremaster, I would choose either a leather corslet or a mail shirt. I might take a cap of iron too and a shield. For me, I would much rather fight Weary than risk a Wound. But, that's me...

I agree. I've run and played in games where dice, etc were fudged in favor of the players beyond the provision of the game design and it tends to feel hollow.

I think adventuring without armour is perfectly viable, however, especially if your characters aren't in the front ranks of battle all the time. There are plenty of things going on in the world that aren't pitched battles, and it isn't a death sentence to go light on/sans armour as it is.

One of my players has only a leather shirt and he's been wounded many times. He's also almost always in Forward Stance, which doesn't help. I have another player who is decked out in armor and always carries so much treasure that he's virtually always weary. Very different playstyles, but they're both viable. If you're willing to risk a wound you need to be careful about also losing too much Endurance (since Endurance recovery becomes such a huge limiting factor), but if you're relatively safe but weary all of the time then you can have a LOT of trouble at succeeding with any action. It's a tradeoff, as is most things.

Incidentally, my third player takes more of a middle-ground approach (which is probably what I would do if I ever get a chance to actually play a character).

I think it's certainly viable; a high wits score helps, as does fighting in a defensive stance.

A player in forward stance and only a leather shirt is running a risky game I'd say.

I suppose within the Fellowship of the Ring, the Hobbits all fought in defensive stance, Legolas was mostly ranged, Aragorn would be open and Gimli and Boromir in forward. I'm not including Gandalf as he is a NPC.

I think I'd vary my stance quite a bit if I was a player and go with a leather corslet, a cap and shield.

I personally prefer the leather shirt and helmet combo to leather corselet and cap. The guaranteed four points outweighs the extra die every time for me.

Aye, a helm of cunning make is a particularity sweet piece of equipment IMO.

I think I will sum things up, a bit tongue in cheek, like this...

"Tell (Mister) Godiva to go put something on!"

One of the things I really like about TOR is that wearing a bunch of armour isn't necessarily an advantage. The more armour you got, the less you're likely to get wounded, and that's great. However, the flip side is that the more armour you got, the more you're likely to get weary, and that sucks. So, it's about balancing things out.

I think, though, that no armour would be tough. You need at least a little bit of armour.

Yeah that was one of the things I was impressed with when I first read the book. It really is a balancing act.

So the consensus is that only Legolas Godiva with his bow and arrows can safely pull off the no armour trick.

Yep, he's absolutely running a risky game, especially since the heavily armored Dwarf does NOT have him as a Fellowship Focus, meaning that it costs Hope to protect him. The character's all about traveling light and efficiently (he has the "Swift" trait), and emphasizes wilderness skills (especially Hunting) where a lot of equipment would be cumbersome. He's the most likely to succeed at tasks in the company (including landing attacks), in part because it takes him so long to reach Weary.

The heavily-armored Dwarf (who generally fights in defensive stance) doesn't even expect to land any attacks, but he's always really safe as well. I'd argue that this extreme is just as detrimental as the "risky playstyle," if only because it becomes tough to accomplish a whole lot.

Of course It's all about the hair! He's still the prettiest!

I think the survivability of adventuring without armour depends heavily on what adventuring consists of.

If adventuring features lots of combat against fearsome foes, the clash of iron, and a row of Orc necks and room to swing at them not wearing armor should be a virtual death sentence. If adventuring consists of exploring, solving riddles, and living by your wits then the lack of armor might even be an asset.

It would be a good idea for the Lore Master and Players to at least talk a little about what style of adventures will predominate.

My current character is not designed as a warrior but does wear mail shirt, iron cap, and shield and fight in the front rank. My companions wear predominantly leather.