Hello,
I purchased TOR when it first came out with the intent of converting my Middle Earth campaign from ICE MERP. But my game group did not adopt TOR. Old ways die hard.

I began digesting the system but stopped when it was evident we would not be playing TOR. Times change and I have some interested parties willing to tackle TOR.

So I'm in the process of digesting the system again.
I am on page 100 of the Adventurer's Guide and a question comes to mind about the following passage... about invoking an attribute and spending Hope to offset a bad roll.

I understand about invoking an attribute bonus, but my question is about why Heart was chosen in this particular example?
I would have guessed Wits would be used in that case.

I will continue digesting and maybe it will become clear later.


Thanks any replies!

If you look at the way Common Skills are laid out on the character sheet, there are three skills per 'set': Movement, Perception, and so on. Each of these three skills is underneath one of the Attributes: Wits, Heart and Body. Whichever Attribute is above a skill, that is the Attribute bonus that is added to a roll when invoking a bonus by spending Hope with that skill

Ahh yes I recall that layout now. And looking at it I see he was trying to use COURTESY which falls under HEART

Ok thanks

That's not completely true - the other two Attributes can also be used.

Page 26 of the AB:

When a player fails at a roll, he may spend one point of Hope to receive a bonus equal to the Attribute score that is considered most pertinent for the action.

... This gives some leeway for players and LMs to use any of the other two Attributes should they deem it more approriate than the one the skill is grouped under.

Hope that clarifies an often overlooked flexibility inherent in the game's design.

Oh, I never noticed that, thanks Rich. I shall bear it in mind from now on

Ok... reading that now...

But the example following that paragraph goes on to say...

Which falls more in line with Beleg's reply of using the Attribute in line with the appropriate common skill column.

If that's the case It would be my player's choice to always choose the highest attribute no matter what skill would be used, which doesn't seem to apply to the skill they are rolling for.

So when saying "most pertinent for the action" I think it is meaning the most pertinent common skill for the action...

What do you think?

I think the most pertinent attribute is usally the corresponding one, but if the player wants to use another attribute, it's up to the LM to rule if it can be applied to the action, along the same lines of players asking for advancement points and the LM deciding if it's allowed

Ok thanks for the replies. I will plod on and figure out how to tie this all together.

That's the hardest thing about learning a radical new system, how it all ties together to form a smoothly running system.

But a fellow can't see the the terrain ahead until he has traveled it, so onwards I go and hope it doesn't cost me too much hope!

Which would be fine as long as the attribute you were wanting to use was more pertinent than the other two attributes and you had agreement with the Loremaster.

Like Beleg states, the guideline in the rulebook allows flexibility in the system so that (in certain situations determined by the player/LM) other attributes not usually paired with a skill can be paired with it. It's to give flexibility for creative play and to avoid certain actions where applying the "common attribute" for a skill would seem counter-intuitive or silly.

I understand about that flexibility in theory.

In application I know my guys, they are number crunchers that comes from gaming several systems since the very beginning (yes we're THAT old) lol

Of course I realize that in game play situations can arise not anticipated. Especially with hardened gamers who are pushing the boundaries of a system.

So I'm thinking that if the action they are trying to accomplish doesn't fall within the common skills then choose the closest attribute bonus for what they are attempting.

I need to keep ambiguity out of the picture or it will turn a couple guys off. Already there is some quibbling about the abstract nature of combat. These guys love tactics.

Well, I'd suggest that they should play to the spirit of the game and rules rather than exploiting things. We can all 'play the numbers' if we choose to, it's easy to do in most RPGs, but for me RPing is more about artistic/creative expression than 'gaming' a system.

Not sure what you mean here. All actions should be applicable to (or 'fall under' as you put it) a common skill, weapon skill, or a character's Valour or Wisdom traits... Then when a player decides to spend Hope you assign the applicable Attribute - usually that matches up with the one that the skill is listed under but like we've discussed above, that can vary. Perhaps remove that variation to stop the min-maxers amongst your play group?

You have my sympathies. ... But also, the combat system is a lot more tactical than many people first realise. It may surprise them.

Thanks Rich.

I may be just over-thinking and worrying unnecessarily without truly understanding the entire system.

The guys are good role players and TOR provides excellent provision for it, better than any system we have played.

I appreciate the replies.

No worries and glad to help.

You know your players best so if you think they'd 'abuse' such a rule then I think it's prudent of you to close it off.

Glad you're enjoying the system though - it's a great game and sooooooooooo easy to fiddle with!

One case I recall from a MERP game a character wanted to try.

The party wanted to cross to the far side of a deep stream so they managed to tie a rope onto an overhanging branch and one by one swing across.
MERP has 6 second rounds, so each attempt was a couple rounds to attempt the swing, then get the rope back across for the next character.

Meanwhile an encounter occurred on the far side and when battle ensued the next player wanted to try a maneuver of swinging Tarzan style to bash one of the opponents.

He was successful and I awarded good XP for creative thinking on his part, but had to be creative myself in setting up the maneuvers.

So that's what I mean by something that doesn't fall under the common skills.
How would something like that be handled in TOR?

A test of athletics? Or what more?
MERP required several successful maneuvers to complete the task

Athletics roll for the PC. TN of 10 plus Attribute level of opponent. Success results in the opponent being knocked over and taking 1 Endurance point’s worth of damage and additional harm equal to the attacker’s Damage rating on a great or extraordinary success.

Ok that's easy enough! Fun and simple, I like it

Cool, glad you do. Trick is to always try to keep things simple if you can. No point over-cooking things...

My players are generally good role-players, but a few aren't above trying to min-max things from time to time.

When playing TOR, the Elf player attempted to use his Lore skill for something that didn't (at first blush) appear to have much to do with Lore. We did as suggested in the rules and discussed it for a second among the other players.

One other player threw out that he didn't think Lore really applied (I can't recall what the task they were attempting; perhaps hunting?). The player explained, and enough of us agreed that it made sense. His character's knowledge of Mirkwood made sense that it could make sense.

Just throwing out there the flexibility of the system. I do have to remind my players occasionally to look for the most appropriate skill, rather than trying to shoehorn what they're trying to do into their skill with the highest number.

But the group mechanic, where others pitch in their thoughts, helps keep people focused and involves everyone much more than most games.

Yeah, I was going to say "depends".

I would rule "Heart" if the Speaker was aiming to receive an emotional response for the listener... and "Wits" if it was more logical, calculate facts way of convincing someone.

But this is a slippery slope, one man's logic is the other man's passion... so maybe it should rather be grouped by "where" the Speaker is pulling his arguments from?

Either way it's always a judgement call, and I usually take the "Attribute" above (as laid out on the sheet) as a guideline, when in doubt.

/wolf

yep.