I discuss TNs over at my blog at http://cohorsarcana.blogspot.it/
Be sure to check the comments, as Nick is providing me with some useful insight.

Francesco

"Defaulting most rolls to TN 14 doesn’t mean you are making it too easy for your players. TN 14 is a ‘moderate’ challenge, meaning that you have 3 chances out of 10 to fail even rolling 3 Success dice. "

Ok, this is for me, after playing about 6-7 games, the only real bug-bear I have with the system. The above is quite right, however, you are assuming that the PC is rolling 3 success dice; but for most starting PC this isn't going to be the case. From my experience about 90% (an estimate) of the characters skills are going to be in the 1-2 level range (Poor in the book), which means that with an average roll of 4 on the two success dice, you would need to roll over a 6 on the Feat die. Which since the Eye is position 11 that is less then a 50% chance of success (relying on the feat die) of success; I know there have been times when my group has been hard pressed to make the TN 14 on the rolls. If level 3-4 is "Average" should that not be the level at which most skills are at the start?

But a PC is only usually a "starting PC" for about 10% (an estimate) of the total game.

Personally, I really like the default TN approach, for the reasons Francesco states, though as LM I tend to be more lenient for starting PCs.

I was afraid the default TN would be too difficult for starting PCs, but I decided to trust the system for a few games. And I think it's working pretty well. The TN conveys a sense of difficulty, and sure, they often fail rolls, but they can spend Hope to save the important rolls, so that's not a big problem. And since there is a finite and small set of skills, there are usually at least two PC with the same skill, so they usually are exploring or searching together, and at least one of them will find something.

My biggest problem is figuring when I should give them APs. At the moment, I give them APs:
- when they do an important roll, even if they fail
- when they succeed on a difficult task
- when they try something new
- when they use a relevant Trait

However, I still feel that they don't receive enough of them, compared to the rate at which they receive XP. They developed a tendency to ask for APs even when they do unimportant rolls, and their Valour and Wisdoms are improving much faster than their skills, which feels a little unnatural at the beginning, but I'm sure will improve as the costs increase.

I'm also having "complaints" about how fighting doesn't give you any points at all. I'm starting to think that extraordinary feats during battle should give some XP. It's not unbelievable that you would become more wise, more valorous or more skilled with weapons by fighting difficult battles.

We're discussing tweaks over at my blog. The likeliest way to go seems to have players gain 1 AP for every successful roll against TNs above 14. It is a very reliable and easy to apply mechanic. Other stuff is being thrown around, so, still thinking about it!

Francesco

After reading your blog, it seems good to maintain some uniqueness associated with gaining an AP for invoking a Trait (the 3rd point comes from Trait invocation only). Both in theory and practice, this mechanic I most enjoy when it comes to ongoing character development. Also, when I remember that Tolkien always felt "magic" in some very important way was the ability to make the 'will' more quickly affective, invoking a Trait always comes to mind either for a simple success or an AP. Invoke a Trait to gain an AP and the player is 'affecting' the game through their freedom with the consequence that their skills become more refined and advanced. That in turns allows the play-hero to become a more affective agent within the game. Whether or not intended, I take this as part of that subtle magic that pervades the setting. A nice juxtaposition comes into play, then, between those players who invoke their Traits more often for simple successes and those who more often invoke a trait for an AP. The former look more for the quick and immediate gain, enforcing their will immediately on the setting. The other players tend to let their characters develop more organically, growing with the narrative as they use their Traits for character development with the impact taking longer to manifest. My campaign works with this thematically to sometimes good- and ill-effect.

All of this to say, I hope gaining an AP through invoking a Trait remains central to the logic of gaining APs in general.

As a side note, I think the default TN 14 works best at least for my style as a LM. Before every session the players are reminded of the default TN unless I explicitly say otherwise; and, in time, they no longer need reminding.

Thank you for making the forum an active part of these 'living rules'!

Best regards,
E

Maybe I've misread the RAW, but I think Nick's wrong to say you need higher TNs after the first AP. The LM can also award second and third APs for great and extraordinary successes at TN14.

But I think you're basically right on the static TN - people's variable capabilities are already taken account of in the skills.

As for APs as a separate issue, I haven't played enough to know how well they work to advance the characters, but I do know I keep forgetting them in the heat of play!

The default TN of 14 didn't initially sit well for me, but we went with it, and are still making our minds up.

The default TN of 14 means the Player-Heroes don't tend to attempt things unless they're important and the Fellowship really needs a success at them. On the one hand this keeps the 'spam' of requests for trivial Tasks down -- which may be either a good or a bad thing.
(Such rolls can be a distraction from the main important matters at hand. And worse: people coming from BRP and similar games can be terrible 'tick-whores', trying to make rolls simply for the shot at advancement, and nothing to do with roleplaying their character or engaging with the scenario at hand.)
On the other hand, it means that for the important rolls, the Player-Hero who's invested their points -- defined their identity -- as being good at that stuff is the one who gets wheeled out to make the roll, and enjoys a moment as centre of attention for something where the others are not so strong. It's often not realistic that no one else in the group would have much chance of succeeding in something, but achieving this emphasis does benefit the group dynamic and the characterisation within the game.

Keeping down the requests for trivial Tasks is a bad thing when it limits the players' sense of engagement with the situation. If they can't expect to succeed when they just 'have a go', they tend to become more passive.
So I like to have a decent amount of dice-rolling as it keeps the players engaged, and repeatedly draws everyone's attention back to the middle of the table as they all lean in to see the result. (Another unexpected benefit of all sharing a single set of TOR dice, instead of everyone having their own dice and just rolling them in front of themselves.)
My solution has been to have the Big Rolls -- the make-or-break ones that will affect the whole party's prospects -- stick with the TN of 14, but also to encourage people to get involved by requesting Tasks even when things are less critical. I typically allow these at a TN of 10, and of course don't let anyone expect to get any APs for them.

It's a bit uncomfortable to have to provide a workaround for a core mechanic of the game, but the end result on the game seems to be about right.

Cheers,
--Os.

That is exactly why I think this discussion is so relevant. If there can be an easier way for players (and LM's) to remember AP awards, we'll take it. If you read Francesco's blog, I think you will see that he has settled on allowing the award of the 1st and 2nd AP anytime a player rolls a great or extraordinary success OR if he succeeds on a roll with a TN higher than 14. Also, an AP can be awarded anytime a player succeeds and invokes a trait to explain why. This last way is the only way he can gain the 3rd AP in a skill category.

I see this as more of a GM issue than a system one. If an action is trivial, then why make a player roll for it?

The dice should come only come out when there are consequences for both success and failure.

I went back over my Marsh Bell AP, totaled all the recorded occasions when they ought to have got APs and discovered three of the four companions would have got 3 and the last one only 2. Even allowing for tests I hadn't recorded, that's probably only 5 each.

How about the following as a set of guidelines?

You can get the first AP with an ordinary success and invoking a Trait or proposing a negative consequence, or with just a great or extraordinary success without needing either.

The second you can get with an ordinary success plus both a Trait and a negative consequence, with a great success and either, or with an extraordinary success by itself.

The third requires a great success with both a Trait and a negative consequence or an extraordinary success with one or the other.

You'd have to earn them in order, too - no using an extraordinary success to fill in the second slot before you'd got the first.

I really don't like the idea of giving out AP for not using Hope. Instead I think you could give out an AP at any level when someone fails a roll with an Eye - that would also be more frequent early on, as more skilled characters will find themselves succeeding on rolls with just their skill dice.

Does any of that sound sensible?

I kind of like the fact that skills advance fairly slowly in the game. It makes spending the points you do get more important. It also means that a character with 6 or 7 adventures under his belt won't completely overshadow a newcomer (but there will be a noticable difference in a few skills).

Just out of interest how many advancement point are folk giving out per (lets say 3 hour session)? I seem to get a range or 3-5, which feels about right to me.

My range is 2-4, for most sessions, but I often forget to award APs for Fatigue rolls where everything goes smoothly, or for Vigilance rolls, when something happens and a fight ensues. Last session, the adventurers only got 2 APs each, and that feels kind of low.

I try to keep the AP on par with XP as far as how much punch you get per session with them. If people get 2 XP per session, they can raise a Weapon Skill from 0 to 1 in 1 session, from 1 to 2 in 2, from 2 to 3 in 3, from 3 to 4 in 5, etc., etc. To keep that same rate with Common Skills (and since there are so many more Common Skills than Weapon Skills, that seems like a perfectly fine baseline to take in the absence of more concrete guidelines), then they need roughly twice as many AP as XP per session. Which means my players typically never get enough! I have had to set the standards lower than my reading of the RAW for what earns an AP to help them eek out 3 or 4 per session.

Our run through the Marsh Bell lasted maybe five hours, after which they had two or three each.

Thinking out loud.
Reading this thread, dawned on me that maybe I need a simpler system to judge ap award.
Not yet played TOR "seriously", but I know my style: not so many die roll, and when they are required I execute them really fast, to avoid "snagging" the flow of the game (am I clear? Not native speaker trying his best ).
Maybe I can go with something simple like this:
success=1st ap; great success =2nd ap; exceptional =3rd ap
Invoking trait= 3rd ap.
If tn is less than 14, no ap.

Travel skill is going to be a big source of ap, but with a ceiling of 3, I'm fine.

Simpler and far from perfect, but faster to administer. And while xp accrue fairly quickly, ap lag behind...

I typically see players earning 6-8 AP per 3-4 hour session. Although, I did play Words of the Wise in 2 hours with only one player and he earned 6 AP himself. You should note that I have allowed the award of an AP for a great or extraordinary success for the first one. For the second AP in a category, I required invoking a trait on a success. For the third AP, I required a success on a TN 18 or higher.

But, I think I like Francesco's tinkering suggestions better and will start using them.

Play sessions average 2 hours, but as AP are awarded per adventure, not per play session, duration is not relevant for AP.

I have been giving the first AP for TN 14 success.

Second AP requires great or extraordinary success.

Third is not often gained and requires something exceptional, but off hand I can't recall an example.

I have occasionally allocated an AP (first or second) if the PC rolled an eye that caused him to fail and added a complication to the situation.

I'd say that or average they earn 8-12 AP per adventure, but as skill costs are getting higher, they are having to save points up.

When I was running TfW there was no time for a Fellowship Phase between the last two adventures, so no AP could be spent, however, I did allow them to move those points to the back of the character sheet and start from scratch for Watch on the Heath.

Ugh. I've been requiring trait use AND good rolls. I've also been in the market to change how I hand AP out because my players are getting 1-4 per adventure (usually 2 sessions of 4 hours each).

I just hope my players don't see this thread. That way, when I switch to the new way, it will seem like I'm more of a hero for helping them out rather than the bad man who withheld precious AP.

I think I've been really stingy with APs for my group. Our sessions 'theoretically' last about 7 hours. Though a lot of that is my players talking about utterly irrelevant things. And I think they usually get about 3 or 4 APs in that entire session :/
Then again, they only recently started invoking traits, and once or twice I've given out 'generic' APs if they succeed at something impressive in battle... like rolling 3 'Gandalfs' or something. That or for being narratively interesting. However, I think I may have to be a bit nicer.... :S

This works well, so is it now official or recommended or optional? Was there a follow up topic or blog about this by Francesco?