Getting ready to GM first session of TOR. On reading the rules though have foreseen a problem. Something which seems counter-intuitive and something my more combat minded players are sure to pick up upon.

My problem is the parry skill does not seem to increase as the player becomes more skillful at hand to hand combat. I know 'parry' is described as a defensive bonus but I feel a proper counter-stroke for defending may be needed.

My first thought was to give each player (and opponent as needed) a +1 to parry for every skill rank they have in a appropriate defending weapon and perhaps negating the bonus altogether if the opponent has a lower weapon skill, to speed up combat and sort the wheat from chaff etc....

My second is to go down the RuneQuest (and CODA LOTR) route and allow a parry roll for the defender with the TN being the attackers successful roll. A similar method could be used for a dodge roll made with the athletics skill (modified by encumberance rating so it's always better to try and parry in heavy armour than dodge). Combat stances would have to be modified or abandoned I imagine and I intend to play defending and attacking advantages by ear using this method.

I am relunctant to make too many changes to system though as the beauty of TOR is it really brings the roleplaying to the fore, but some of my players are very combat minded and are sure to complain if parry remains truly static. That being said, I think I will play the first session without modifying combat system at all and see how my players like it. You can only really tell a system when you actually play it. Will keep dodge option though and I give basic parry skill as highest of Wits or Body as I intend to be generous.

I'm posting this though as I was wondering if any other players have similar concerns?
If I have misread the rules though, apologies!

Apologies for typo in title. Do not know how to edit it.

I haven't played the game yet, but I think when it comes to defence, the more experienced characters can profit from their higher weapons skills indirectly by taking a more defensive stance. That makes them harder to hit, while they still have a good chance of hitting their opponent (because of their higher attack skills).
Seems good to me: Young, inexperienced characters may feel the need to act more reckless, while veterans can afford to be careful. It's a sharp contrast to most other combat systems, where the more seasoned warriors pull off the extraordinary feats. Sounds al little more realistic, actually.

Ah yes, interesting. That hadn't occurred to me.

You also have the Knockback rule on pg160 of the AB, for those players who want to throw everything into their character's defence.

That's precisely the logic of TORs Combat Stances. This is important to communicate to new players: Combat Stances are not physical, spatial s on a combat board. Instead, Combat Stances are the attitudes assumed by player-heroes during the engagement. As skill increases, it's possible to be more defensively minded and still strike your opponent. The higher TN then in Open and Defensive stances isn't becasue you're farther back in the melee, but becasue you are devoting as much if not more attention to defense as well as offense.

Simple and elegant in my opinion.

However, take a heavily armed and armored dwarf who really isn't concerned with defense anyway, they can maintain the forward stance as their combat skill increases. And, in so doing, they become even more deadly. That's the experience in my campaign.

This system works truly well only if you maintain the asymmetrical mechanics in the LMB for Lomaster Characters and Adversaries. If you treat the opponents player-heroes come up against as fully developed characters, then the system tilts off balance.

We experimented with this over the course of a few trial seasons focused on combat. With the rules as is, our dwarven warrior was far more affective against an opponent generated according to the guidelines presented in the LMB. Against an opponent that was generated like a player-hero according to the rules in the AB, he wasn't as affective. Moreover, he became quickly frustrated that his combat ability seemed minimized all of sudden. So we scrapped house-ruling anything associated with the combat system and left it as it stands. As a LM, I appreciated it later on becasue the rules for generating opponents are quite simple from a gaming perspective, and lighten the load carried by a LM.

Regards,
E

Can't agree more, Eluadin.

I have ran over half a dozen combats so far in TOR, and it is that mindset that was the hardest for my players to grasp ... most now understand and like it ... although, one still has trouble understanding (more about him below).

An example of how I explain it is this, "Stances are NOT s on the battlefield, <Enter Player Name>, but an ATTITUDE your hero has about fighting ... he's in Open Stance, he's more aggressive ... putting himself out there, so to speak. He's in Defensive Stance, he's being cautious ... watching for safer ways to engage his opponent. You want a combat advantage over that Enemy? Use one of your extra dice the company got with the Battle rolls at the start of the combat, describe to me HOW you're using it, and we'll go from there." My player who still has trouble understanding always wants terrain effects implemented, flanking bonuses, or to employ dirty tricks (yes, he's a D&D/Pathfinder player) ... but won't get off of Hope or use the extra Battle-roll dice to actually implement ANYTHING. IMO, I should not be handing out freebie bonuses, when he already has the tools to make those bonuses happen.

VERY simple and elegant. AND, it has the added benefit of giving the players much more control over events as they are capable of ACTING rather than REACTING during combats than is available with other game systems (D&D, Pathfinder, GURPS, etc.). That is, they tell ME more about the battlefield that I have already described and interact with it. They do NOT see a battle mat/board laid out with a grid, move their miniatures about within the grid, using the terrain that is printed out and acting according to what is there and immutable ... can't quite move far enough to get that flanking bonus? Too bad. IMO, that's REACTING. Instead, they "see" a terrain I have described and interject additional terrain features ... describe maneuvering so that they get an opponent between two allies, providing a needed distraction to take 'em down. All accomplished by utilizing extra dice from Battle rolls and Hope. IMO, that's ACTING. So far, I have seen no need to house-rule a thing.

dont fiddle

it works well in practise, dont worry

I adore the stance system and it didnt take my players long to get it.

Have run about 8 sessions of TOR. I like it

@Throrsgold - Excellent explanation. Another way of looking at it is that one type of system (i.e. D&D 4E) rewards a player for understanding the tactical nuances of the grid, positioning, movement, powers, and synergies between the various elements, while the other (TOR) facilitates building an exciting combat scene in your mind through flexible mechanics that facilitate artistic license. I went into more detail about this in my latest blog post (hope you don't mind me quoting you).

So far I've only run 1 session (The Marsh Bell), and my group is so used to playing 4E D&D that they would default to just saying "I hit it with my sword." I guess they're more focused on picking options than crafting a scene. Hopefully as I run the game more they'll "come out of their shells" a bit more, so to speak.

Thank you. And, I do not mind in the least. In fact, I am honored that you would use what I had to offer. I liked your blog, too.

My players, too, are still "coming out of their shells". It's ongoing process that is a delight to see develop.