Just thought you might be interested in reading my rather exhaustive review of TOR over at http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15457.phtml

I hope it compels more people to check the game out!

Very good and thorough review! Thanks for taking the time to write it.

I liked it as well. Have you flushed out any of the house rules you spoke about?

Thank you Bill! A thorough and honest look at the game, much appreciated.

Francesco

Glad to do it, Francesco! Now get back to work on those supplements!

Or, better yet, hire me to write some...

Bill, I just read your review and you've done a superb job!

I expected your analysis to (more-or-less) mesh with mine because most of us on here agree that C7 has captured Middle-earth with TOR, but I'm also pleasantly surprised to read your summation of play.

You write, what is in effect, an excellent outline for all of us to follow in terms of learning the rules. I'm going to refer to your review often for this very reason .

Wow, thanks for the cudos!

Nice review but I think off on one point.

Re Traits and auto success (Bilbo didn't have Burglary it seems), it's only if the Loremaster agrees ("may allow") and only if failure would not be "dramatically relevant".

So no auto success Burglary to filch Arkenstones or bits of dragon hoards from under the sleeping dragon.

You don't want auto success all the time anyway as then you can't use it for Advancement points (the three uses are "or" so only one at a time). The situations where failure would be dramatic are likely those where Advancement point likely relevant.

Rob

I'm guess this would also hold true in the case of the swimming of the raging river that was mused in the review.


Aside from that - I do agree that this was a wonderful review; and so far as I can tell this is a wonderful product that I can't wait to run a game of.


Robert

As I have done elsewhere, I must disagree with this. This interpretation of automatic actions has been propounded by members of this forum, but it does not appear in the rules.

Traits allow automatic actions whether the consequences of the action are dramatic or not. The only limitation on automatic actions is that they can never result in great or extraordinary successes.

Bilbo didn't need the Burglary trait to take the Arkenstone: he just picked it up off the top of a mound of treasure when he was all alone in the dark and put it in his coat.

I would allow Burglary to be used to take the silver cup from the dragon's hoard, though there would undoubtedly be a high TN to do so. Remember, when Bilbo picks up the cup, Smaug seems to be disturbed. Bilbo beat the TN, but only achieved an ordinary success—merely adequate. If he had achieved a great success, he probably would have taken the cup without disturbing Smaug. With an extraordinary success, maybe Smaug wouldn't even notice the missing cup for a week!

That is the way I look at it as well. One issue, though: there is no actual skill to use when trying to burglarize something if your LM doesn't allow the trait. You can certainly use AThletics to swim, however.

Burlgalry can be broken down in several common skills however. Craft to pick locks, Athletic to climb roofs and Stealth to sneak-in etc.

I'm less sure about pick-pocketing, but I'd be tempted to make it a vocation skill; Craft in this instance.

I can buy that except, as you mention, for picking pockets.

I'm a bit at lost when it comes to similar 'fine motor skills'.

Athletics doesn't fit the bill and there are no 'dextrous' common skills. So I'm tempted to take the craft skill in its broad definition of 'working with your hands', including (but not limited to) 'crafting goods'.

What I was saying was based on players book, page 95, quoting:

The Loremaster may agree with a Trait invocation to speed up play, especially if failing at the roll would not lead to dramatically relevant consequences, or if the action wasn’t difficult.

Perhaps i wasn't clear in my examples. Failure at filching Arkenstone by Bilbo in the Hobbit could have resulted in very perturbed Dwarven comrades (I thought he filched it rooting about in treasure in room with all present doing their own rooting, if he was alone, then yes auto success, wouldn't make a roll anyway) and failure filching from Dragon hoard could result in very perturbed Dragon - in each case it was not the significance of the accomplishment I meant, it was the "dramatically relevant consequence" of the failures, and at least for the second the difficulty - which the quote also indicates is relevant.

So unless whatever others are saying elsewhere on boards is equally rooted in direct rules text or official FAQ, I count it as "interesting but certainly not how I would play the game".

It's true that traits can bring automatic actions in cases where failure does not bring serious consequences, but this is not the only use of traits. It is, in fact, only a subset of the description two paragraphs above:

The example then describes a situation in which a trait is used for an automatic action in which failure would have a dramatic consequence:

Failing to find traces of an ambush certainly qualifies as a dramatic failure!

Let us suppose we are playing Bilbo as he enters the dragon's lair for the first time. He is invisible, and he decides to steal a silver cup. He tells the Loremaster he'll use Stealth to take the cup without disturbing the dragon. The Loremaster knows Smaug is keenly aware of his hoard, so he says this is a Severe (TN 18) action.

Now let us assume that Bilbo has Burglary. (There's always the question about whether he should really have burglarious skills, but let's ignore this for now.) Bilbo's player has a choice: he can invoke Burglary for an automatic action, or he can roll the dice.

If he invokes Burglary, he achieves an automatic ordinary success. Bilbo picks up the cup, but Smaug stirs uncomfortably in his sleep. Bilbo runs away, terrified, but jubilant. Smaug soon wakes up, though, discovers the missing cup, and goes on a rampage.

Using an automatic action, Bilbo can achieve no greater result. If, however, he chose to roll dice, he might get better results. Suppose he has Stealth 3. He rolls the feat die and three success dice and gets 2, 5, 4, 5. This isn't quite enough to succeed, so he also spends a point of Hope. This results in an ordinary success, just like the result when he took an automatic action, above. However, Bilbo may now take an advancement point to the Movement skill group if he didn't already have one.

If, on the other hand, he rolls 2, 5, 4, 6 and spends a point of Hope, he has achieved a great success. Not only does he get the cup, but Smaug isn't disturbed at all. Bilbo gets away safely, and he may take an advancement point if he didn't already have more than one in the Movement skill group.

If he rolled 2, 6, 4, 6, he succeeds with an extraordinary success. Bilbo gets the cup, gets away with an advancement point (assuming there are any diamonds left to fill in the Movement group), and Smaug doesn't even notice that the cup is missing for a week. Perhaps Bilbo managed to arrange the treasure around where the cup had been to make it look like it was still there. Smaug may notice the hobbit-smell in his lair, but he doesn't know Bilbo stole the cup, yet.

If Bilbo rolled 2, 1, 2, 3, he has failed and cannot spend Hope to succeed. Smaug awakens, and now Bilbo, who is holding the cup but has not gotten away, must deal with an awakened and alert dragon.

I bolded the part that myself and probably others are probably focused on.

While it's true that the system of invoking traits can be easily run amok, I feel the use of the word "May allow" gives the LM freedom to disallow when consequences of failure are too great or counterproductive to story drama.

I feel the system is robust just enough to handle all sorts of possibilities AND to allow the freedom for LMs to make ad hoc decisions. It does not appear that rules are meant to pigeon hole the LM at all; by including the MAY part to cover all bases. Where as other RPGs such as D&D 3rd edition and beyond have black and white rules to cover everything - it leaves many a DM without a gray area to really work with to make ad hoc decisions that could really add to the story. While many players work better in such structure, it seems TOR has a much more relaxed system akin to 1st edition D&D, to allow the rules not to get in the way of a good story.

It is merely up to the individual LM and where he/she falls in the permissive - restrictive spectrum.


I doubt very much I personally would allow swimming trait to automatically allow someone to escape a raging river that spells certain doom; what about automatically avoid a tsunami? Obviously these are extreme - but these are the things that must be considered when balancing the traits and what players wish to succeed in without contest. While I may not allow someone to automatically survive Niagra Falls drop, or swim across the Nile, I could see it allowing the person a second chance, giving a spot bonus to their athletics roll, or even allow them to automatically reach a thrown rope that his fellow companion has provided him.

As with all RPGs and such nuances, YMMV. Ultimately it's about understanding each LM's style, and their players, and respecting what it can and shouldn't allow, and for players to not try to abuse or take advantage of the system. The more they do, the more likely the LM will begin to add more and more levels of restrictions. Then it's no longer fun and everyone loses.

Robert

Hey Robert, I'm a Rob and we agree.

Swimming raging river is a difficult test and has dramatic consequences, not something to gloss over and hand waive so for me fails multiple criteria for use of trait to auto pass. On the other hand if rolling and passing, then trait use for advancement may be in order.

I feel this makes about as much sense as anything. I work in the healthcare industry and I can see relating Athletics vs Craft as similar to Physical Therapy vs Occupational Therapy.

Things requiring fine manipulation of the hands is equatable to needing occupational therapy to recondition; which aids a patient in getting back to being able to work with their hands and being viable workers (read - Craft).


Robert

When did I say anything about taking away the Loremaster's right to veto an action? If he feels the trait isn't justified, that's that. But what I am speaking out against is the notion that traits are never used for rolls with dramatic failures, which is what is being bandied round here.

With an ordinary success, the outcome should be describable by answering the question "Can I do this?" with "Yes, but..."

For instance, to swim a raging river, as you suggested: with an ordinary success, whether achieved by total, Gandalf rune, or trait, the result is the same: yes, you avoid drowning, but you probably get dragged far downstream and are exhausted and sick by the time you get out. If a great success, you manage to get where you're going, though you'll still be exhausted when you get there. With an extraordinary success, not only do you manage to swim to shore, you manage to rescue one of your comrades at the same time. With failure, of course, you drown.

Anyone who invokes Swimming in this situation can rest assured, "Well, at least you won't drown." That's the best he'll get, but it makes sense: he's a very good swimmer with that trait, so it will automatically save him from drowning.

Be careful with your descriptions. "Certain doom" is certain; it means the Loremaster has already decided that no trait or roll could possible avoid it. There should be very little certain doom in a role-playing game, or players will become frustrated with the lack of meaning for their actions.

Without a doubt!

Such a situation needing to cross a storm-raging rapid river may break down like:

Auto success via Swimming Trait: Hang around a bit longer in hopes that your comrade can throw you a life line, or stay afloat albeit having been swept downriver far, until a calming pool is reached.
Success: Make it across the river - albeit exhausted and significantly downriver
Great Success: Make it across the river - albeit fatigued and slightly downriver from where you started.
Extrordinary Success: Makes it across the river, up and ready to go - and right where the person wanted to land.

EDIT: D'oh! Ninja'd by Stormcrow! :-) Good times.

All three latter successes should result in an advancement point.


Good to meet ya Rob.

Robert

Good call indeed - we are definitely of the same mindset here.

I think we're both agreeing and saying the same thing - we just used different approaches and terminology to reach the same conclusion. :-)

Once again i fully agree. I refrain from employing no-chance certain-doom scenarios.

Happy gaming!

Robert

I think everyone is misreading the rule.

That's the goal here, the rest of the sentence is just fleshing out that part. So obviously the GM decided that gaming through how a group of suspicious players would discover/bypass the ambush wasn't worth the time, so "yup, your keen-eyed character finds the tracks, now what do you do" was the response.


-Jeff

I read it the same way you do, Jeff.

Stormcrow, I really like the examples you provided. I think it just comes down to the fact that perhaps the trait rules might benefit from a bit of clarification in an errata document, if one is forthcoming.

Then what on Earth is the point of traits? A character with Swimming isn't actually any better at swimming than a character without it. A character with Merry can't resist the corruption of Mirkwood any better than a character without it.

This feels like a giant circle:

a) advancement points. You act bold, get a point.
unforseen actions. Your cautious character gets a roll where others do not.
c) speed up play. Everybody else has to make rolls and risk failures. Under normal circumstances, you just do it.


There's a corollary to c: if the group is going to give a task to someone, they'll give it to the guy with a trait to support it. Sure, anybody with high-athletics can cross the rope-bridge on a TN of 14, but why not hand it to the nimble guy and avoid the roll altogether? This puts the nimble guy into the story at the correct place in the story.

-Jeff

Sorry, that's probably not the response you were looking for. My point in the last post was that it's 3 ways to enforce a trait mechanically, and the third way is good for people who don't want to roll just to maintain their character's motif. However, it seems that you don't even value speeding up play...maybe it's a situation that doesn't happen with you, but it has for me and I value it.

For example, in my old days I had people "roll for fumbles" (they succeed unless they fumble)...and 1 in 20 times they did and the story bogged down. Most "roll for fumbles", in my experience, did not produce fun, so I stopped doing it. But that still left plenty of situations that were a bit short of fumbles, and I made judgement calls as to where to waive the die-rolls or not.

This game codifies that situation. Show me a trait, and under normal circumstances you don't even have to roll if you don't want to.

-Jeff

But why would speeding up play be dependent on someone having a trait? "No one has Smoking? You all have to roll a test against Athletics to see if you can breathe freely in the inn..."

Nowhere in your list is there any indication that you're better at a task if you have a trait... except in cases where having the trait doesn't matter anyway. If your party is risking drowning, the member with Swimming is in just as much danger as everyone else at all times. He is not better at swimming for having the trait.

Can we get Francesco to weigh in on this?

LM: your scout failed miserably...either lose a day, or everybody make athletics rolls to cross a fast-moving stream: if you fail you gain a fatigue point.

Super-swimmer: I have swimming, can I bypass the roll?

LM: sure, you make it without losing a fatigue point.

That's nice, and all, but that's not at all what appears in the books.

This is precisely what's in the rules - an automatic success in lieu of a roll.

This issue seems to have gone way overboard, especially when both sides are correct to some extent.

You can invoke a Trait to get an automatic success in any situation, provided no one objects to it and the Loremaster allows it. It is not as of right and a lot of discretion is given to the LM to adjudicate Trait use to ensure it doesn't unbalance play.

One concrete example (and the only one given in detail) of where a LM should allow Trait use is where it speeds up play, especially when failing the roll does not lead to dramatically relevant consequences, or if the action wasn’t difficult.

I think it helps to think of the second paragraph's concrete example as a safe harbour to help build a common baseline for everyone in play.

On saying that, its not the only time a LM might allow a Trait to be invoked for an automatic success. The rest is left to the LM's discretion.