"I know the troll from Marsh Bell is invoked frequently, but how many folks considered fleeing?"

IIRC we could not easily have fled the scene as the way the encounter was set up. The Troll "attacked" after 2 of our party slipped and fell into a gully, the rest of the party had to help them out. It was during the rescue that the Troll showed up in the gully with the two PCs. So, we sort of had our backs to a wall.

"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. "

If we hadn't gotten those two really luck hits in you would be seeing one now.

There's also that the fellowship phase should take between half a session and a session. You get the fellowship pool points for the session to deal out as usual. So, you would get 1 or 2 (if there's a hobbit or you have a focus) points.

Best not to assume that in my opinion as sessions can be 7 or 8 hours long and a Fellowhip phase really only takes an hour or so. That's the main issue I have with the session refresh mechanic - its such a poor mechanism for using to refresh an in-game dynamic as the longer the session the more you'll use Hope (ie, you'll simply be exposed to more skill tests, dangers, etc) yet the less you'll get the Fellowship Pool refreshing.

@Format - first, welcome to The One Ring boards!

Now, with regard to your questions:

As Mordagnir, above, states, 14 can be difficult to attain with only 2 success dice. In the early stages of adventuring, PCs bridge this with Hope. With 3 or more dice, this problem (if you want to call it that) begins to go away.

To your point about "supposed to be hard": as others before me have pointed out, this is as much about perception as it is about game design.

I view this as the "zeroes vs. heroes" problem i.e. are starting characters considered to be farmers with swords or are they already above average. My answer to you would be that, in TOR, they may be a mix of the two or, better stated, only slightly above average.

I think you'll find that most cultural backgrounds have predisposed a character to be an adventurer, although again, by design, I don't think they'll ever approach a member of the Fellowship, no matter how advanced. Clearly, that's not your claim, nor is it especially the topic of the thread but, it may have some relevance with regard to the idea of difficulty.

As others have suggested, advancing your PCs may help quite a bit, especially with a focus on Travel and Weapon skills. You may even find that you want to dial back the complexity and/or lengths to which you expose your starter PCs to adventures (unless, you also give them some strong NPC support).

The idea that an early fellowship is equipped, skill-wise, to tackle a journey through Mirkwood on their own is, in my experience, probably asking too much, although, YMMV and all that. To be honest, I find that, even in The Marsh Bell, a group of early adventurers would be trusted with the objective they're given stretches my "suspension of disbelief."

So, with that in mind, I've found that giving PCs more mundane tasks - a patrol, a hunt that encounters an Orc raiding party (a la "Words of the Wise"), skill challenges, etc. is an excellent way to introduce players to the world, let them build some experience to the world and the system, before throwing them into harm's way.

Hmm. I'd say typical session would be 3 to 4 hours. In a 7 or 8 hour session, maybe there should be two fellowship pool refreshes. A morning and afternoon session?

Yeah, personally I think the rules should have been written with the idea of in-gameworld refresh points so that they could be used within adventures as part of the narrative and as an important part of the game/story rather than just an artificial refresh at the end of your game session. This is how I run them and it works far better for me.

"I view this as the "zeroes vs. heroes" problem i.e. are starting characters considered to be farmers with swords or are they already above average. My answer to you would be that, in TOR, they may be a mix of the two or, better stated, only slightly above average. "

This is precisely my point; using the RAW the beginning players aren't even average in skill ability they are in the "Poor" category. If they wer average I would have no point of contention.

The using hope until they get better also has a bit of a flaw in it that points to another possible problem with the Hope system. What use is the hope system once the characters do reach near max skill levels? (what is the max level? I don't have a copy of the rules handy.) It sems to me you are sugestiong the Hope system is only a crutch for the characters to use until they get over the hump of skill competency.

In my mind if the PCs are supposed to be in the average joe range of skill level, then "officially" change the amount of points the PCs get to bring more of the skills up to the average rating when they are generated.

"So, with that in mind, I've found that giving PCs more mundane tasks - a patrol, a hunt that encounters an Orc raiding party (a la "Words of the Wise"), skill challenges, etc. is an excellent way to introduce players to the world, let them build some experience to the world and the system, before throwing them into harm's way."

This is a really good idea, BTW.

Evocatus, thank you for the greeting.

I like Rich H's suggestion for house ruling A heal corruption like Hope gain, it sounds very Tolkieny.

I agree with Beran, adventurers should be above average or they would stay farmers. Even the Hobbits were not average Hobbits.

Amazed at the number and speed of posts, good work folks.

I've not seen it any where but can you regain points of hope for achieving goals, such as rescuing Balin and Oin in the Marsh Bell?

@Format - I think you'll find that, since TOR is new-ish, folks are eager to engage on questions such as these as it makes us all better players and LMs.

With regard to Hope gain, I think the only in-game mechanics are Fellowship Pool (which, honestly, is yet another point of ongoing discussion, i.e. when and how is this tapped) and Fellowship Focus. The latter of these, in my estimation, is the only way you can build your PC Hope pool, and only if your focus completes a session "unharmed."

As regards the zeroes vs. heroes, I find this to be a subjective choice - some like gritty realism, others like heroic fantasy. Personally, I find TOR sets the stage for both.

From my own play experience, I can say that I've found it most internally consistent to group starter PCs with more advanced/experienced since it stands to reason a young Woodman wouldn't necessarily run a patrol along the eaves of Mirkwood or go spider hunting without an older mentor. However, YMMV.


@Beran - I view Hope less as a crutch than as an eventual source of tension within the broader game narrative. Certainly, I'll not deny that early game tends to call for Hope expenditure - simply try and take a longer journey across varying terrain and see if your newbie PC doesn't have to make several early early decisions on whether to burn a point or become Wearied.

Because of this it causes the PCs to become judicious in their use of Hope as spending it without regard can set you up for some very bad things later - Miserable, Bouts of Madness. This is the reason I suggested using 10 points during char-gen on Travel and weapon skills vs. on things like Awe or Riddle - PCs are going to need those extra success dice or they will be burning Hope left and right.

As others have suggested, Hope is the defining resource in-game, driving the decision process as the PCs progress, e.g. should I burn a Hope point to make that Travel roll to remain unwearied? We're approaching the High Pass, and I need to reserve my strength because we're likely to be attacked. However, my Hope pool is dwindling and I may need that point to make a combat roll . . . what to do?

As the game matures and our own play experience broadens, we'll see characters begin to run afoul of the Hope economy and we'll be better able to understand the system, both at the player and LM level.

Tn 14 can be pretty harsh. On the other hand it's not so different from Warhammer, where most pc got skills in the 30% range (without any Hope/Luck mechanic, for 1st ed.). And once you hit skill level 3, life is far easier in TOR.

My primary concern is that -like Evocatus wrote- the starting Heroes are too much unexperienced to be trusted “missions” by patrons like Gloin or Radagast, etc. This I find jarring, in my worldview.

My “solution” was to have the Marsh Bell happens upon the Heroes by chance: they are hunting near the Stair of Girion when they stumble upon a wounded raven, Hraf, sent by Gloin to search for Balin (page 127 LMB). Hraf found the wrecked boat, but was attacked by the gore-crows and barely escaped. The raven explains the dwarves are surely in dire peril, maybe it's too late to save them, no time to go back asking for help: so while the Lake-men warns Gloin in Esgaroth, the Heroes rush to the rescue...

Before actually playing, and by doing the math, I was afraid the default TN was too high. But nearly a dozen adventures, I can say we never had any problem with it. Everyone in the group had different skills, and they usually found a way to solve their problems with their skills. Just make sure them notice that having two dice in a skill is kind of low, and they will spend their starting XP in the proper places.

The biggest problem they had was that they didn't boost Stealth and Athletics. Then they noticed Athletics was really used for a lot of stuff, and Stealth was, well, a good way to avoid a fight. But, knowing they were poor at it, they used their brains instead, and it worked.

Now, I'm starting to think they're a little too good for the time we played. Going from two to three, or from three to four dice, they really improved their chances a lot. One of them, using Awe and Song, can solve most social encounters easily. The other one, a Beorning, is a little too good of a hunter/lookout man, especially during the night, so they can never be ambushed. And I don't want to bring artificial challenge by requiring too many Great or Extraordinary sucesses.

Well reading this thread has SO made me want to LM the game again, roll on after Christmas when it's my turn to GM again.

I'd just like to point out that starting characters have a nice selection of skills at level 2 (average) and should have 2-4 skills at level 3 (which is good). In no way would I say they start with poor skills. Yes they have a few weak spots, but hey who doesn't?

They have a fair chance of hitting TN 14 with a skill level of 2, an average roll (not taking in to account the eye and G rune) is 12-13, so a roll a little above average will see you through. Now I'm fairly sure that we've all played games where a little above average roll would not be good enough. I'm looking at you WFRP.

So you have a fairly good chance of passing rolls at things you are competent at and a slightly below average chance at passing a roll at things you are passingly familar with. Sounds about right to me. Then of course you have hope to get you through those tough scrapes.

And remember advancement is designed to be slow. So when a skills bumps from 2 to 3, it's a big deal.

"I'd just like to point out that starting characters have a nice selection of skills at level 2 (average) and should have 2-4 skills at level 3 (which is good). In no way would I say they start with poor skills. Yes they have a few weak spots, but hey who doesn't?"

Having rechecked the book you are right level 2 is average...I guess I was thinking of the Attribute chart. Which still doesn't really change anything in my mind; with an average roll on 2 success dice you are going to get a 6 which means you are going to have to get a 8 or higher on the die 12 to hit the TN 14, not exactly an average roll in my experience.

As I say, it doesn't detract from the game. You just have to get over the frustration of failing a lot of rolls at the start. Once that is done you can have fun.

I think it comes down to a common theme among gamers - the average gamer wants to succeed more often than he fails, especially when playing a Hero ™. When you're having to make a dozen travel rolls, and failing more than you succeed, it doesn't really give you a good feeling about your character.

I compensated for this in part by creating an introductory adventure with lower than normal rolls for several tasks, including Travel (the group was traveling with a caravan). However, the Woodswoman didn't have ANY travel skill, which means even a TN 10 was nearly impossible. That was a frustrating experience for her.

Why did the Woodswoman not have the Travel skill, dosen't everyone get that

Starting Woodsmen got 0 Travel skill. Like Elves and Beornings...

I didn't know that, I don't have the rules in front of me. Did she at last take the Hardy quality?

Ok, this is another problem then. Elves, Beonings, Woodmen not getting the Travel skill? The ones that range the most around their respective territories. Not to mention given the importance that is placed on Travel kill levels during a game...I think it is probably the most used skill in our games.

The fix, presumably, is to buy Travel with your discretionary points. However, I'm sure this is extraordinarily frustrating for new players who don't understand the significance of the skill. It doesn't kill you if you miss it, but you become Weary pretty quick and stay that way until the next fellowship phase (when you presumably skill up).

Especially, with the high cost of weapon skills in the game. You can pretty much march or hit your target, not both at beginning levels.

Have a look at the revised travel rules, on here and Francesco's blog. Only the Guide needs a Travel skill. Others need Hunting, Awareness, Explore, etc. This would cut down onthe number of rolls and the needfor everyone to cover Travel.

Just to be a pedant, the average on 2d is 7, so you need 7,8,9,10,G on the d12 to succeed. So with an average success dice roll you will succeed 5/12 of the time i.e. 41.66%. If your base attribute is 4 and you want to spend Hope, then you'll succeed on a 3 or more i.e. 75%.

We've not found TN 14 to be a problem TBH so far.

Thanks for the info. I saw the rules but hadn't checked them out yet.

HN

Yes, but my point is in my mind spending a hope point is what you do you if a PC is at climatic moment in the story and they must succeed or something really bad is going to happen. Not, to succeed at any old test (ie like the myriad Hunting, Awareness, Travel rolls) you have to make to keep corruption away, or to hit an opponent in combat.

Hmmm, interesting. My FtF TOR game is a pretty small group (3 players), and I've found the opposite to be true. Flat-out dying seems to be rare (though our Beorning has come close a couple of times), and overall the combat system seems somewhat forgiving. I've gotten into the habit of actually making my encounters tougher than I think they should be.

What is the makeup of your group, and how many players do you have? Are you using the Stance system to full effect? Usually my group has someone in Defensive stance re-directing attacks his way (our heavily-armoured Dwarf burns through a lot of Hope protecting the Beorning, who isn't his Fellowship Focus; keep in mind that Hope spent using the Protect Companion action on your Fellowship Focus is immediately replenished!). Do you have players using the Rally Comrades action to replenish Endurance? Are heroes looking to do a lot of damage in Forward Stance while "fresh," but then falling back into Open or Defensive stance once they've lost some Endurance? Are you using spears and bows against enemies with Great Size (like the Troll) in order to get a piercing blow?


Personally I'm fine with the TN of 14, but I would prefer some more points at character creation, for some skill diversity if nothing else. The main problem I've seen is that starting characters really only have a few useable skills, and everything else is basically "hope for a Gandalf rune!" Probably less of a problem with a larger group, where skills can be spread out amongst more heroes.

Beran, reading your post it dawned on me that you are looking for some type of "Fate point" mechanic (WFRP parlance): the sort of resource you use during the climatic confrontation.

I got the impression that the Hope mechanic is a different beast: it strives to simulate the long, slow grinding of Frodo's and Sam's travel across Mordor, where their willpower was slowly chipped away by toil and darkness and hunger.

Well, anyway, my two cents

Well, except that it isn't - it's more to do with every time you fail a roll, you have to decide if it's worth using up your Hope to succeed or not and what effect that might have in the long term.

"What is the makeup of your group, and how many players do you have?"

5 Players. 1 Woodman (me, now. Previous a Dwarf), 2 Dwarves, A Dales Man and an Elf of Mirkwood.

"Are you using the Stance system to full effect?"
I think so.

"Usually my group has someone in Defensive stance re-directing attacks his way (our heavily-armoured Dwarf burns through a lot of Hope protecting the Beorning, who isn't his Fellowship Focus..."

The Dwarves usually fight forward, my Woodman prefers Open the Dales Man Open/Defensive, Elf usually in the rear with the gear (defensivie.)


"...keep in mind that Hope spent using the Protect Companion action on your Fellowship Focus is immediately replenished!)."
Did not know this, as well as the Flellowship focus.

"Do you have players using the Rally Comrades action to replenish Endurance?"

Ah, what's that?

"Are heroes looking to do a lot of damage in Forward Stance while "fresh," but then falling back into Open or Defensive stance once they've lost some Endurance?"

As it is usually just the Dwarves up forward, not really.

"Are you using spears and bows against enemies with Great Size (like the Troll) in order to get a piercing blow?"

I believe the Dales Man uses a spear sometimes, and to be blunt the Elf isn't that crack a shot with the bow.

Ok, I don't see the difference here.

Beran,

Here is a suggestion. I have not playtested it nor have I given it much of a mental go over. The idea is using the favored skill of PC's similiar to the way NPC's use their theirs. NPC's add their attribute level to their favored skill with no hope being points spent. Perhaps PC's can add their basic attribute score to their favored with a hope point being spent. This way they get a bonus but not their favored bonus.

So least in skills they are good at they have greater chance to succeed.

HN

Well, you're saying that Hope is for use in climatic occasions; I'm saying it isn't, it's longer term than that. I can't really think of another way to express it.

We finally got to start our second adventure tonight. While it was the first session we got a couple of combats and a few skill rolls in. This time the dice seemed more friendly to the players and we had more passes, although the Woodsman seems to have great difficulty hitting anything with his axe.

Fedifensor Wrote:
"When you're having to make a dozen travel rolls, and failing more than you succeed, it doesn't really give you a good feeling about your character."

Unless it is Mirkwood, known to be difficult, dangerous, and arduous, replete with Shadow.

Thus those that survive have been tested. Weary, worn, but alive. Heroes.

If it was easy, a bunch of hobbitses and a king to be and his followers could do it.

Erm ...

Yeah, I'm not sure I get that either.

Not that I didn't get it. The implication being that the disposal of the ring was easy

Of course not. I was trying to be ironic, in that we as fledgling heroes in the game, within this setting are getting exercised about missing a few swings. What about missing "The overrun of civilization by evil, should we fail."

Those guys said, We will do this. We will make it, we shall not fail. Like heroes of many ages, past and present in real life.

Yet we are players of a game where people groan at riolling some 1's and cheer at a gandalf rune.

So play.

Be the hero, spend those hope points, get weary, have fellowship. Next year, back at it.

Blows D&D out of the water. These days, all I GM is One Ring, and Dragon Age.

14 is not too high. I just don't use 14 all the time. Itself, more irony.

I think this revision was in response to the complaints comments a number of folks had about the difficulty, but I think it guts the Travel risk of the game.

It's the same way folks responded to the idea of Shadow/Corruption.

It's same way folks responded to TN14.

etc. etc.


Many of these assertions have been made with minimal/no actual play, let alone enough play to see characters advance a little. Apart from that, there is a clear disconnect between designer and (some) player expectations.

Folks keep talking about the LOTR and the principal characters' achievements/abilities as a measure/baseline for starting PCs. Keep in mind that the hobbits were barely recognizable in attitude, outlook and ability when they returned to the Shire.

Even more importantly...this game isn't based on The Lord of the Rings.

If you want a literary comparison, you should consider Thorin's company as the measure, not the Fellowship. Consider a group of thirteen dwarves, a hobbit and a wizard and how much trouble they have:

- defeated and captured by trolls
- defeated and captured by goblins
- pursued and trapped again by goblins
- defeated and captured by spiders
- defeated and captured by elves
- 25% of group KIA at BoFA


This is more expectation management than game balance. If you look at the TNs and character advancement, PCs are going to top out faster than folks think.

"Many of these assertions have been made with minimal/no actual play, let alone enough play to see characters advance a little. Apart from that, there is a clear disconnect between designer and (some) player expectations."

Define "minimal/no actual play", please. My group has around 10 game sessions under our belt, and I have concerns on most of the points you mention. Even with the fudging of the experience rules our LM did to advance our PCs more quickly I still don't think they are as good as they should be (ie to be considered heros) still way too many skills at 2. Also, I think there are far too many travel rolls that need to be made during a game. I am all for testing to see if the PC get tired/weary during travel, but it seems the system is geared to make sure that they indeed do get tired. However, as AFAIC the Corruption rules are fine as written.

Oh, and I have mentioned I have no problem with the TN being 14, I just would like it that the skill level meets the task without having to spending a hope point most of the time.

"A hero is not judged by his skill levels, a hero is a guy who despite little or no training, stands fast and does his best under trying circumstances they are not totally prepared for." - me

I think hope points ahould be spent. I think fellowship should be drained. At the end of the thing, these people are beat down, weary, miserable, and ready to quit. Until called upon for the next mission, which in their right mind, anyone would refuse.

But they do it, because: they are heroes.

"The real Heros never came home."
-Gen. J. Dextraze (paraphrased)

Given how easy it is to get weary and lose ability in the game I think this a better description, yes?