Ran The Marsh Bell as an introductory adventure for me and my players over 2 sessions. We're all very impressed with the game. But the basic TN14 seems too high, this isn't just my players moaning, I as LM am thinking this as well. Players seem to fail nearly every roll they make unless they spend Hope.

Folks that have played the game for longer, have you found this?
Is it only a problem for beginning characters and goes away after spending a bit of experience?

My problem is not that the TNs are too high, but as I have mentioned quite a few times here on the boards (and it does tie into the over all question here) is that the starting skill levels of the "heros" are too low. According to the skill level descriptors in the book about 90% of the skills a hero will have will be in the "Poor" category with a couple in the "average" category to start off with.

So, yes I have found skill success to be very difficult during game play.

Likewise. Have you house ruled this at all?

I think this is more an issue of expectations. Most games seem to be written as if the party will most often be successful in rolls.

A lot of that is due to the nature of how older games were written. If you can't climb the cliff face, then you can't get to the tower and complete your quest. If you miss the perception check, then you don't find the clue that leads you to the next scene. Failure at the wrong time put the breaks on the game, so you couldn't have everything be difficult.

That is not the case with ToR. The focus of rolls is less "failure means you get nothing" and more "failure means you suffer consequences." How you deal with those consequences is what makes the game interesting.

Failure should be very present in this game. Without it, the Hope/Shadow struggle is diminished. The slow descent into weariness over long journeys is removed.

So, let your new characters fail. It makes for better stories and allows the game's other systems to really shine.

Not really found any difficulty with this myself. The TN14 mark seems right. Compared with low-level play in other games, there seems to be more in the way of success in TOR. The use of Hope early on also seems right, as characters are fresh and keen but unskilled. Later, they will be more skilled but also more jaded and cynical.

At the early stages of play, Hope is meant to be used to achieve the appropriate TNs, that way as the game progresses and characters develop and improve in competence their Hope will have been used up previously to this but later in play it won't be relied on as much (as skill ratings will be higher). The standard TN of 14 creates/supports this dynamic and the danger of slipping into a Miserable state and then suffering a Bout of Madness. It works really well and is a pretty balanced setup so personally I have no need to fiddle or house rule TNs in any way.

"Failure should be very present in this game."

The only problem with this is if you fail in combat with the types of creatures you are apt to face in TOR you will end up as a blood smear. As I have said before in our first game my party was just about wiped out by a half strength troll. If it wasn't for two lucky wounding hits our characters would have been jelly.

I have no problem with PCs starting out as average joe type of characters, but by the very definition listed in the book starting PCs are in the "you suck" category. I finally realized that the only way my PC would be able to survive the multitude of travel rolls that were thrown the PCs way was to invoke his Hardy quality.

Yes, there should be A CHANCE the PCs will fail at a given task, not a GOOD chance they WILL fail.

My group has played around 9-11 sessions and for the most part we were using a system of the LMs design for experience to get to advance as fast as possible. In our last game we agreed to go RAW for experience from this point on, and we are still well behind the curve in ability to where we should be...IMO of course.

"Likewise. Have you housed ruled this at all? "

No. I am not the LM, so it really isn't my place to offer any house rules on the subject.

"At the early stages of play, Hope is meant to be used to achieve the appropriate TNs, that way as the game progresses and characters develop and improve in competence their Hope will have been used up previously to this but later in play it won't be relied on as much (as skill ratings will be higher). "

Perhaps this is where my problem is. To me Hope/Destiny/Hero/Luck/Willpower/Force (whatever you call them) points are for use in cinematic and climatic moments when failure is really not an option (ie if you fail this roll the nuke will explode taking the whole of the downtown core with it.) Not as something to use to prop the PCs ability level up artificially until they become experienced.

The characters in LOTR tend to be competent if not heroic, shouldn't the characters in the game be the same?

When I role play I want my character(s),both as a player and DM/LM, to be the heroes.

Before this game we were playing in a cyberpunk type game where we failed at everything we do, we stopped playing, it's not fun. And after all that's the main reason we play, to have fun.
Don't get me wrong I don't want them to have it too easy but there should be more than a slim chance of success on the standard difficulty.


Not sure if I've missed something but it seems hope is quite difficult to recover.
(I am used to playing Savage Worlds where bennies are replenished each session)

Then let the characters fail, and deal with the consequence / direction that the failure takes them in. It's the choice of the characters and their players as to whether the action is deemed important enough. A roll should only be called for at a time when there is a divergent point. Success will take them in one direction, failure in another. The choice is the adventure.

The characters in LotR would be experienced characters. In some cases, very experienced. Merry, Pippin, Sam and Frodo are not that experienced and do fail at things - especially early on. Old Forest, Barrow Downs, etc. Only after Lothlorien do they start to show some degree of competence.

If you want to start play with more experienced characters, give them 20 character points to start with rather than 10. Or even more for a very high powered game from the start.

Hope is difficult to recover, and should be. The theme of the Lord of the Rings is all about the struggle with the Shadow and loss of Hope. It shouldn't be seen as a negative thing, but part of the story. The gaining of a few flaws in the character isn't necessarily a bad thing - as long as it's not too many.

Try to look at it in a different way Beran as your view above isn't what the game was designed like - it isn't "used to prop the PCs ability level up artificially until they become experienced". Its created to push the narrative tension of dwindling Hope, increasing Shadow, and potential Bouts of Madness. It constantly asks the question of the Player/PC, "do you want to use Hope to succeed but drift closer towards your Doom"? Once your character gets more experienced, your Hope should be of a lower value and therefore you will be closer to a Bout of Madness but as your skills are better you now don't have to spend Hope as much and therefore the descent into Doom is not a sure thing - you're just sailing very close to it so tension remains, but it is not certain you will succumb. The game is designed like this, its part of the narrative of TOR - to push this dynamic of Hope, Shadow, and Doom.

"Then let the characters fail, and deal with the consequence / direction that the failure takes them in."

Trouble with that is I am one of the characters that ends up with his face in the dirt with the other guys boot on my neck. Because, the NPCs sure as hell know what they are doing.

"If you want to start play with more experienced characters, give them 20 character points to start with rather than 10. Or even more for a very high powered game from the start."

If I were running the game I probably would do something like that, however I'm not so can't.

What's your LM think, have you talked to him/her about it, what do they say?

I don't doubt that is the general design theory behind the use of hope in the game. But, in game play I haven't seen it executed like that.

I've addressed my POV in passing conversation before with him, yes.

My sympathies then because that's exactly how its worked out in my game that I run.

And what's he say?

The choice of the character is basically to spend Hope, a dwindling resource, or to accept the consequences of failure. Both are valid narrative paths. Both lead to further adventure. For example, capture by a group of orcs gets the company in to the stronghold just as easily as skilled sneaking - a little more bruised maybe. A decent LM will use this as a plot device and allow opportunity to escape once within the walls.

Not really that much. I think he feels that as the we fudged the exp. rules earlier on to help boost skill increase the characters are strong enough as is.

I guess that depends on if the LM understands the design intent behind Hope and Shadow and TNs. When I first got the game, I thought the TNs looked too high and it was only reading Francesco's ideas that made me look at them in combination with Hope/Shadow and the deliberate way they are meant to interact. I then altered my approach to the game accordingly - fortunately, this all happened before I started running it so I was able to offer a coherent experience to my players. If Beran's LM hasn't picked up on this design goal and thematic driver then I'm guessing he'll be running it in a more conventional pass/fail sense.

That's a shame. In my opinion he's missed out on a really important and interesting part of the game - and so have you, his players, because of him.

I think part of the problem is that we are probably running the hope rules slightly incorrect. I haven't gone into in depth in the books, but we seem to be using hope Pool as a supply of Hope before the characters individual pools are done. From what I gather this is the reverse of what should be happening (ie the PC uses his own Hope then can draw on the party pool to "buy" another hope point.

This is on the list of questions I will be asking when the game picks up again in a few months time.

Not necessarily. I see this as a narrative or story driven game staple and have used it frequently in FATE games - awarding the characters FATE points for use later. Though if the LM comes from a more traditional hack & slash / D&D background then they may not get the dynamic. A GM that sees the game as him vs. players will definitely not get it. I occasionally have to retrain players that come from D&D to a more narrative style game.

It makes sense to use your Fellowhip Hope pool before your own, if you can, because that shared pool refreshes at the end of each session and your own *never* does - well, it can, but you have to choose the Confidence Virtue when increasing you Wisdom. I'm not sure for certain from your post which one you're using first, sorry.

This isn't necessarily incorrect. In narrative terms, the company are using the support of the group to bolster each others' hope in tough times, but then have to fall back on personal reserves when this is exhausted. Bickering and general discord in the group may result and could lead to roleplaying opportunities.

That's exactly my point... TOR doesn't really present itself as a narrative game - it can look quite traditional in many ways and like you say if people are picking it up and come from a more traditional background (I don't agree that means hack and slash or GM vs players, for me its to do more with task resolution and the way themes within the game are, or aren't, supported within the system) then they'll struggle to spot those elements. I'm guessing there are lots of players/GMs that will pick up this game because its LotR and that means many will be from more traditional gaming backgrounds.

That's how it worked in my group as well.

We went with the Marsh Bell first, and they burned through most of their starting Hope just to make it out of there. Since then they have really rationed when they use it; it can be a really weighty decision at times, whether to spend or fail the roll.

It's become one of everyone's favorite features of the game.

Then I guess it comes back to a lack of training on the part of the PCs (ie low skill levels.)

Totally agree - one of my players loves the tension it creates!

I think its back to whether a group embraces this or rejects/dislikes it. I think if they embrace it, then the standard TN of 14 isn't a problem, it becomes a feature that supports this Hope/Shadow tension and lowering the TN would remove that tension which is a critical element of the game in my opinion.

As a group we do come from D&D origins, but we are also a group of storytellers...those of us in my group who have run games have had sessions where a weapon has not been drawn during the whole night's play. So, we are definetly not all about the "hackin' an' slashin'" by any means, and that includes some of our D&D games.

However, I am willing to entertain that we (my group and myself) may have missed the whole point of the Hope/Skill dynamic. I do have to say that I am the only one in the group that seems have noticed skill level problem. No that I really let it get in my way of enjoying the game. If nothing else it certainly gives advantage to avoiding combat.

Hey Beran, just to be clear, I didn't state that traditional meant Hack and Slash and I don't agree that it does, just so you know. Hope that you didn't think that I did.

Like I said earlier, I needed to really read about it from Francesco's (and other peoples') commentary outside of the rulebooks. Its only then that I really appreciated what it was trying to do. It's no surprise that others have missed it and look to the TN of 14 being too high. Glad to read that you're enjoying the game though, that's the most important thing at the end of the day.

"Hey Beran, just to be clear, I didn't state that traditional meant Hack and Slash and I don't agree that it does, just so you know. "

I was just giving an idea where we come from as a group. Though this is not to say we don't enjoy a good blood bath from time to time. Actually, I have been thinking that it could also be my perferred frame of mind toward my fantasy gaming. I am very much an Epic scale gamer; the idea of a stable boy going out and having adventures and ultimatly challenging the King makes about as much sense to me as a lecture on String Theory would. I like knights, and Princes (and princess') and high court intrigue. As opposed to skulking around in the woods of the dale (though I really like my new Woodman PC.)

"Glad to read that you're enjoying the game though, that's the most important thing at the end of the day. "

It is a great game. I still don't quite get that it has the "Tolkien" feel to it (I personally think that Deciphers LoTRs games is the only one to hit it on the head "feel" wise), but I am willing to give it its due chance to prove it to me.

For me, it isn't Star Wars "Force Points" or other Games "Luck Points".

It is the idea that these missions are very tough, and grueling, like the concept of military "Friction".

If guys walk in with rifles it's simple.. bullets, and food. But a truck to carry them can break down, sending in paras deals with failed chutes, and crashed or downed planes lost on the Drop zone.

So a mission or scenario in One Ring Takes Hope to finish, unless you are lucky.

But you adventure with your mates / fellowship and the unit sticks by each other, to drive on to victory. If you don't pull your own weight, i.e. take fellowship without the vote, you are straining unit cohesion.

But relying on skill, and a bit of luck you make it through, but each "Failure" is a new plot twist, a new challenge, such that with all of these challenges, the piople that do these daring things are renowned as heroes.

Recall in LotR, Frodo oftentimes is about to quit, but Sam spurs him on.

A character, beaten down, near death about to fail, pulls it out of misery, and rises, bloodied and triumphant to win the day.

To me, that's where all this is going. Rely on your own hope, but if you do, you'll drain yourself. Thus the fellowship- but pull your own weight.

Ok, so:

The TN 14 is high because it is supposed to be hard to do anything.

You have hope that you can spend to help you pass the roll.

You have a limited amount of hope because it is really difficult to regain.

You need to pick which rolls you want to pass or fail...

In a game that has a lot of rolls for just walking somewhere.

Your traits might be able to get you a pass in a check if you just happen to have the right trait.

Hmmm.

I have a new question, shouldn't you be able to regain a couple of points of hope during the fellowship phase, as it seems so important to the character's ability to do things (like travel or not upset people with quests for them) Surely the RnR would lift the spirits, like resting at Beorn's house or Rivendell or home with your loved ones?

I wonder if there aren't differing decisions of "hard?" With two success dice, your odds are decent that you'll make it (better than a lot of casino games). On an average roll, you'll fail, but almost certainly within a margin that will allow success with Hope. With three success dice, you should generally succeed. Traits allow automatic success when applicable.

Generally speaking, on any given test, someone in your party can succeed if it's important, with the expenditure of a limited, but not absolutely finite, resource. Or, you can accept a failure, which is typically not catastrophic. To me, this system of choices, this weighing of the consequences of failure against the price of success, and the related Hope economy make TOR the neatest system I've encountered in twenty-five years of gaming.

I know the troll from Marsh Bell is invoked frequently, but how many folks considered fleeing? This isn't DnD; you don't get XP from killing it. Nor, for that matter, does the party's progress depend on defeating it.

Put another way, this is the first system I've GMed where my players routinely run away. Not only are they scared of defeat, they don't see a huge benefit in most victories. Wow! That's starting to sound like real life!

Has anyone seen a death during this fight? All I've heard is "almost didn't make it," which seems about right for difficulty/tension.

Are people expecting to handily defeat it?

I ran the troll encounter first as a combat playtest then in the actual scenario. Neither produced any significant problems - ie, no PC was injured or taken down to zero endurance. Which doesn't mean others' experiences are invalid but I struggle to see why its regularly cited.

My players avoided the troll.

I see will'o'wisps.

Lets not go that way.



I'm talking about not passing awareness, travel, explore and courtesy checks. Hitting the Marsh-Dwellers was a challenge. Most hits that landed were down to rolling Gandalf rune!

If its really an issue for you, there's a Heal Corruption undertaking in the Fellowship Phase that a PC can choose which lowers their temporary Shadow score by a varying amount depending on the number of successes they get on a Craft or Song action. You could easily houserule something similar for Increasing Hope - perhaps base it off Inspire or Healing to give a little variation from the corruption one.