Irimë's initial encounter resolution confuses me. This is essentially an introduction, but with implications that last the whole adventure. The scale is based on the number of individual successes, going from zero to 7+ successes (iirc).

That's what I don't get. How in Middle-earth is anyone supposed to get anywhere near that many successes? One attempt can't yield more than 3 successes (Extraordinary).

It's already a whole Fellowship making Courtesy rolls (so 0-3 successes from one attempt). Is it expected that players are supposed to keep making roll after roll until they individually exceed the Tolerance?

Is it expected that players are supposed to keep making rolls until they collectively reach the Tolerance?

That seems like a tremendous amount of die-rolling (3+ checks per player), especially given the circumstances (a rather aloof individual with a very short window of decision-making and a very impatient Legolas).

The results are really significant and can even go beyond the immediate adventure, so it would be nice to grasp how it's intended to go (or even how likely the outlier effects are supposed to be).

How are people handling this? What's the intent?

The three key pieces of information you need for this encounter (and any other) are

Tolerance
# of Successes required
Goal


Once you have that settled, just roleplay the conversation. Everytime a player says something that is contradictory to said "GOAL", have them roll the appropriate skill check (Song, Courtesy, Awe, Inspire, etc).

Rinse and repeat until either 7 successes occur, or the number of failures equal the Tolerance.

Not everyone rolls dice; just those engaged in the parlay that are trying to convince her (or whomever for that matter) of their viewpoint.

When someone succeeds, roleplay the NPC as feeling a little convinced, but possibly throw out something contradictory or doubtful. When they fail a check roleplay that they are not impress and completely disagree or do not believe the claim being made.

Thanks, Robert. In general, I think calling for rolls when someone says something contradictory to their goal is not really the designer's intent, but that's an interesting way to play.

For this particular encounter, it's not really practical. This encounter is set up differently than the norm (e.g. the PCs act collaboratively, gaining information, etc until Tolerance exceeded). The successes are all individually tallied and require a much greater number than normal. The latter part is significant, especially considering the encounter setting.

EXAMPLE: A group of warriors are trying to convince a young lass to accompany them and to not worry of the possible danger.....

The LM has determined that it has a TOLERANCE of 2, and would require 4 Successes to convince the lass. The INSIGHT checks are already done to determine the wisest course of action, and so the encounter is now ready to play itself out.

(speaking of a dark and foreboding fire-swamp)

PLAYER 1: "Well it's....really not that bad...."
LM requests Riddle roll as he knows the young man is trying to convince her of something he does not truly believe himself - Failure! "Are you kidding me?"
PLAYER 2: "Well I'm not saying I'd build a summer home here, but the trees are quite lovely."
LM requests a courtesy roll - Success! "She gives you a doubtful stare - not convinced but at least she didn't verbally challenge you."
PLAYER 3: "We already know how to survive the sand pits."
LM requests Inspire roll - Success. "...and the fire traps?"
PLAYER 4: "Well they make a little popping noise right before they explode - they can be avoided easily enough now."
LM requests Inspire Roll - Success "And what about the ROUS's?"
PLAYER 5: "Rodents of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist!"
LM: Requests Riddle Check cuz LM knows he's bluffing and doesn't really believe that - it's a full count now - one more success or failure will make or break the encounter! OOoooo, An EYE!

Encounter Failed!

Put another way:

Did the author really intend for there to be approximately FORTY-TWO die rolls (potentially 7 attempts by 6 players) to resolve this hasty introduction in the wilderness?

For reals?

It's clear that the die rolls are really important given how the successes are broken down and how important their effects are, so it's not something that was intended to be hand-waved over either.

I apologize - i was going off of encounters in general. And generally speaking you don't have to roll to convince someone when you say something that they already agree with - thus my indication that you roll when there's an indication of trying to sway a person's statement of position.

In the example you speak of - I suppose I'll have to study it's design when I get home to my Tales book.

But it sounds to me as if the Tolerance represents when she's either: tired of answering questions, or becomes alerted to their efforts to shake her down for answers.

In which case, the round robin style still applies.

I would roleplay it out - and whenever a player asks or pries into something that either leads to the goal, or is something that she wouldn't happily provide in the first place, thats when you have the player roll. I do not have my players roll everytime they talk - only when there's a reason that they COULD get an adverse reaction.

Remember the most important rule on actions: there needs to be a clear benefit for success and a clear consequence for failure before the LM or Player ever chooses to have dice rolled. So if they asked something that was of no consequence and it wouldn't offend her at all to talk about it, continue on until they do bring up a touchy subject. If they are all traveling together, you can even stretch this out over a few a days so that it doesn't seem like a job interview or interrogation.

Remember that Insight Rolls before the Encounter can help the players towards success.



*Based on what I just read from Ormazd, it sounds like his players JUST experienced this encounter - perhaps he can chime in and give feedback on how he ran it.

AHHH - I doubt it, most encounters are TOTAL successes by the party. (though I will know more as soon as I look at the book later tonight).

Remember some players can choose NOT to partake in an encounter (for fear they won't schmooze appropriately).

Their successes tally - but so do their failures.

Out of curiosity, when you run your encounters this way, do you award successes without die rolls? I.e. when they say something "right"/productive, you award a success? If you only roll when they say something contradictory (or potentially so), that would seem to punish players who aren't particularly well-spoken or confident roleplayers.

Yeah, that's why I was asking about this particular encounter. I understand the basic encounter system, but this one varies quite a bit from the norm AND has a really high threshold for success.

It's one of those moments where I'm not totally confident that this encounter was actually playtested with 'rules as written' (if at all), but rather written as "wouldn't this be cool if..."

No need! You're just being helpful and we're talkin' 'bout games - fun stuff.

I did just wrap up this adventure (the final synopsis is still in the works).

I ran this Encounter as I run most of them ... that is, the way I suspect the designer intended the scene to go, rather than strictly as RAW, although I don't stray very far.

After establishing the Tolerance for the Encounter (3, if I remember correctly), I let the players chat with the NPC and ask them to roll after just about any substantive statement. Sometimes this will be Riddle (for a bluff or lie), sometimes Persuade (for a request or argument), sometimes Courtesy (for a pleasantry or compliment), sometimes Awe (for a boast or intimidation). Usually, every character is skilled in at least one of these.

In this case, each character introduced him/herself with Courtesy (I totalled each success and failure). The dwarf slayer took his automatic success with his Lordly trait and chose not to speak to Irime again. The woodsman warder failed his Courtesy roll and also never spoke again. The two hobbits in my party each did most of the talking, as they are the most social of the group. I don't remember the exact rolls, but since they kept talking and asking for information (they were also trying to convince Irime that they needed to finish their errand for Beorn), I let them continue rolling. Once they had agreed to accompany Irime west to the mountains and had been convinced that Legolas et al. would finish their "quest" to deal with the orcs, they stopped rolling dice (I judged that, though they were still talking, the Encounter was over). By that time, one hobbit had managed 4 successes, the other 6. That was on maybe 3 rolls each (remember, that great and extraordinary successes give multiple successes on a single roll).

I don't know if that helps, but 7 successes was certainly possible for some, though not all, members of the party, without dragging things out extraordinarily or rolling a million times.

In fact, my players don't really even know the Encounter rules (by design). I just roleplay the discussion and ask them to roll every once in a while. It stops when they hit the Tolerance in failures or when I feel the conversation is over.

O

Honestly I took the initial encounter and then amended by subsequent interactions during the journey as Irime talks to the various group members.

Me and my group thought that this social encounter was a bit tedious and almost impossible to successfully resolve as well. I don't remember how many dice rolls each of my players had. It wasn't long before they really didn't care anyway as they were immediately put off by Irime's cold and unfeeling nature and had pretty much all bombed fthe first few rolls. There was no love-loss between the two parties. There were very much like "Screw you lady, we are going out of our way to help you and can't get so much as a smile or thank you out of this?" She did not say much to them, as they all failed the tolerance (or, at least, had 3 or fewer successes) and they did not say much to her.

My players do not ask for trinkets or baubles either; (it has been an excruciating pain for me to try to award them with treasure in order to see how the Standing stuff works) so it's not as if they were intentionally torpedoing the encounter by giving a "what's in it for us" kind of impression . In fact, the one session we played out that gave them the opportunity to plunder a pagan/undead crypt, they completely disregarded looting the place, thinking it dishonorable. After 20 sessions, I think one player has about 6 treasure, the others have even less.

My players act like a group of dirty, gritty defiant tough guys; they will happily defend an elf, (any morally good elf, legolas or irime) with their lives, but care nothing for the prancing foppery or elves (what the Dwarf in my group refers to as "Elfery").

Irime, however, in my campaign, got a sense of the dirty, stubborn resolve of her escorts, when, in the final scene, they stood shoulder to shoulder and collectively told the Gibbet King to shove it and that they'd happily die in the pit of the Necromancer in service to Irime rather than in service to him. I couldn't help but feel, even though they botched the initial social encounter, that this would have impressed her, so I played her differently after that.

Going a bit off-topic with that:

Meeting Irime in Those Who Tarry looks to me like one of the (far too many) situations in TftW when you have to play a social encounter when there's absolutely no need to do it besides letting the PCs with social skills shine.

I mean, Irime's a great Noldo, but then she comes to the PCs with a "you have been chosen" style speech. And yet, she then ignores them, doesn't address them directly and is generally mean to them? And doesn't grant them the Elf-Friend title if they didn't initially impressed her, even if they saved her heroically later on? It looks as if the dwarves had said to Bilbo after the Battle of Five Armies "you're great, you pretty much saved us, but you were a bit mean to us during our party in the Bag End. Sorry, no treasure for you".

I had the same problem with Of Leaves and Stewed Hobbit (beware, spoilers follow): Dodinas (or was it Dinodas?) wants the PCs to save his poor brother, but offers them greater rewards only if they are courteous and boast successfully? It could work if the party were merciless, greedy types ("we will save him - but only if you give us half of your money and your precious letters of introduction"), but not in the heroic TOR.

That said, I think that Those Who Tarry would be much better if you counted individual successes throughout all the scenario, not only during the initial encounter - and if you granted successes not only for being courteous, but also for every time a PC does something especially heroic, courageous, or benevolent.

All good thoughts, everyone - thanks!

Like Ormazd, my group is a pretty diverse group of players. Some players are more likely to engage in extended social interactions than others. Like Rocmistro's, my players will also most likely either be (a) put off by Irime's distance or ( assume that the encounter is largely resolved with an introduction and commission from Legolas to escort her.

Without obvious (and probably awkward) prompting to "roll more", I don't see most of my group pushing the situation. It's set up, after all, as both hurried and a little overwhelming with both Legolas and a Noldorin Lady present ("The encounter is brief, and the companions will do better to play upon their major strengths if they want to make a good impression.").

As written, it seems like it punishes players (not just characters) who aren't very talkative/aggressively questioning (and thus, rolling more dice).

And for those who haven't read ahead to this adventure, when I say "punish", I mean it. The most likely outcome (0-3 successes) results in Irime ignoring that character and not being able to benefit from a Fellowship focus for the rest of the adventure. OUCH.

4-6 successes means Irime will condescend to talk to the character.

7+ successes will result in the character blessed as an Elf-friend (which would make my players super-excited).

Yeah, I think that's the only way to be even remotely fair to the players, and maybe "fair" to Irime as well.

If a running tally is kept over the course of the adventure, that gives folks a chance to change her opinion of them (and their opinion of her!) over time. I think it's also only reasonable to play it out like Rocmistro and have the heroic actions of the players affect count as successes as well.

If it's done dynamically in-play, that could be really cool as companions who had been plagued by doubt and grief (i.e. not allowed to have a Fellowship focus) had their spirits lifted as the Lady's countenance shines upon them (and thus allowed them once more to benefit from their Focus, etc).

Hmmmm, I'm not entirely sure I know exactly what you're asking here. Or more accurately, I'm not sure I understand the point you're making about punishing players.....


That being said, allow me to explain myself a bit further. To understand that, let us first move forward with the assumption that per the LM Book, a "test" is only called for when there's a reason. This is explained by: a clear and obvious benefit for success, and a clear and obvious consequence for failure. If one or neither exist, there's no point in having a test. For instance: player announces he wants to clean the mud off his armor. LM has no dog in that fight, and it makes no difference whatsoever. Having the mud on or off the armor is not having an in-game effect - so no test is relevant - let the player do it.

Now taking that to "Encounters" (roleplaying based vs "Combat"), a test is only required when the statement of position of NPC A conflicts with player B. Usually an "encounter" with tests exist when the players want something from the NPC or vise versus, in which the other side is hesitant to acquiesce. That is the "goal" of the encounter. Any conversation that directly correlates to that goal requires a "test" (because it is assumed that the other party does not readily agree). If a comment, question or otherwise conversation arises that does not specifically correlate to the statement of position, a "test" is not actually required.

In the instance of "Don't Leave the Path" When trying to convince Lindar that the other heroes want access to more of the halls, any attempt to Bluff (riddle), persuade, inspire, song, awe etc, in any way to attempt the barred passage requires a Test from that player. A success adds to the total needed. A failure adds to the amount allowed via Tolerance - each party member can choose to converse if they want - which continues to add to the grand total of successes or failures.

If however, a player says, "By the way - whats the weather like heading West on the path?" No test is required because it doesn't support the players agenda as it relates to Lindar's stand. (Unless of course for some reason he also prefers to keep the weather a secret).

In the case of Irime and the players learning about her - I would say allow the game to just flow and each time the players talk to her - continue to add up the successes/failures throughout, and adjudicate it at the end of the adventure; as opposed to a 30 minute conversation that seems to be wonky and serve a gamists agenda.

I dont know how the above penalizes certain player types as you inquired. So hope this helps.

Maybe in some sort of passive or abstract way ("a body a rest remains at rest unless acted upon"), but that's not the way the rules or examples work. The "reason" for the test is because the game is built around those checks.

The default initial action, for example, is an Introduction. The companions select Courtesy, Awe, or Riddle as the first step of an encounter. There's no "opposition" as such, nor is it implied that any/every encounter is with an NPC who is negatively disposed to the companions. It's just the game mechanic of a greeting, but the die roll determines how well that introduction comes off.

That doesn't bother me, mind you, because it levels the playing field between players (not characters) who are naturally outspoken or well-spoken and those players who are not comfortable or proficient roleplayers (i.e. improvisational actors).

That's not really the case that the rules and published adventures. That is NOT a criticism of how you play, but just an assessment of the game mechanics and material.

Yes. That's a very straightforward case. That's something of a rarity, however.

Gloin in "The Marsh Bell" and the LM, and the players) all want the same thing, but the game still requires the encounter tests for the quest to be given.

Dodinas in "Of Herbs and Stewed Hobbit" (and the LM, and the players) all want the same thing, but the game still requires the encounter tests for the quest to be given and to determine how much of a reward is given.

Beorn in "Kinstrife" (you get the idea) wants the companions to go on the task, but the encounter tests determine how much of a reward is given.

Irmie in "Those Who Tarry" wants the companions to escort her, but the encounter tests determine how much of a reward (or penalty) is given.


The most frequent encounters in the game appear to be "we all kinda want the same thing, but we want to see just how Courteous the PCs can be when agreeing to it."

That's why I was curious about you making rolls only when players say something that's contradictory to the NPC's goals. For the most part, the PCs and NPCs have the same goals. The only difference is does the NPC grumble or praise them.

If you only make rolls when the player (not the character) misspeaks, that penalizes certain players. Joey is a great speaker, but his character has no points in Courtesy. Shelley, on the other hand, is really shy at the table and doesn't speak up, but her character has Rank 4 in Courtesy. Rules as written, they both roll when they talk to the NPC, not just Shelley because the player accidentally calls Gloin "Master Elf" instead of "Master Dwarf".

Again, I'm not saying you're having badwrongfun or anything, but I don't think that's how the game and encounters are designed.

I'm still a little bit confused about your original question.

In most of your examples, the NPC in question and the PCs want more-or-less the same thing (assuming they're heroic in nature) and/or the adventure relies on the PCs accepting the "mission" being presented by the NPC in order to move forward. In those cases, the goal of the Encounter isn't to get the NPCs to hand over information (like in the Lindar example given above), it is to determine the scale of reward for the PCs when they inevitably take on the mission.

I don't see a problem with this. I don't see that giving PCs a smaller reward is the same as "punishing" them. If the PCs are particularly courteous and friendly to Dody, then he feels compelled to give them a greater reward than if they are jackasses to him. In either case, he rewards the PCs for helping them, it's just not as great a reward as it might be. The same goes for Irime, if the players impress her demonstrate their general awesomeness (via social skills, rather than simply combat-oriented ones), she rewards them with the Elf-Friend trait. If they do not, then the PCs are still rewarded by the elves, along with the knowledge of a job well done, but don't receive the Elf-Friend trait. This is not "punishment." Now, I admit that the inability to use one's Fellowship Focus IS a punishment of sorts, which one could look at in two ways: 1) every roll has a penalty for failure, so those who generally have bad social skills and/or usually just sit back while the others do the talking do have to pay a bit of a price (for once) or 2) you can ignore that element of the Encounter (as I did). Also, I never played Irime as "mean" or unpleasant, even to those who failed to impress her. She was just distant and sad and focused instead on the the PCs who had been courteous and respectful to her. None of my players seemed particularly upset by her ignoring them.

In short, it feels (and this is just my impression) that you are looking at this from a D&D perspective, where failing to get the maximum amount of possible gold at the end of the adventure is "punishment" for doing something wrong. Rather, I (and my players) make no assumptions about gold/rewards, and anything they do get is a bonus.

O

Yes, you're misunderstanding. I said nothing about you punishing players. I was discussing SirKicley's method of resolving encounters.

SirKicley says that he only requires a roll when a player says something contrictory to the goal.

Note the distinction between player and character. I, as a player, can't really speak Sindarin, but my character can. Or, I as a player may be very well-spoken, but my character has Rank 0 in Courtesy. If you only call for rolls when a player misspeaks, that method of resolution rewards player ability and potentially punishes those players who are not well- or outspoken.

My perspective isn't a D&D perspective, it's from a professional developer perspective. If it were the former, I'd do what DMs/GMs/LMs always do: wing it.

I'm breaking down the rules and published material because I like to understand the designers' intent and see if the design actually supports that intent. As I pointed out, most of the signature encounters aren't about persuading/bluffing/etc, but about impressing. The resolution tables are also mathematically skewed toward failure in ways that seem to contradict the rest of content.

E.g. Gloín is pretty likely to throw the companions out on their ears, forcing some awkward "back on the rails" actions from the LM. Frankly, that's not really good design.

Beorn and Irimë both are very likely to have negative attitudes toward the companions, no matter their desire to serve them. Irimë's is so negative that it comes with a significant penalty. Moreover, the encounter rules (and in particular Irimë's setting and direction) actively dissuade players from making the number of rolls needed to even avoid punishing failure, let alone reach a thematic reward.

I think there's a disconnect between the rules and actual play, especially with regards to the signature encounters.

I'm another one who isn't a fan of the Encounter Rules as they stand, although in this case FWIW, I think getting 7 successes is supposed to be extremely difficult for each player. There remains an issue with the 'punishment' of not being able to use the Focus, though.

Have you had a look at this thread, discussing Encounters in general?

First, I agree with what Ormazd is saying in his post. Second - what you've posted about what I've said is a bit of a misnomer, though I'll admit it's no doubt partly due to what or how I've said things in the past or how they were conveyed.

Allow me to elaborate a bit more; as the the word "contradict" isn't the most accurate description in all cases. Furthermore, as I had admitted, I had not read that adventure when I tried to respond to you - so I was unaware the nature of how atypical her "encounter" was yet so i'll at least point that out that my comments were not perfectly catered towards that situation.

All "Encounters" have a goal (using the word encounter as a game-term). The "Goal" is not 100% agreeable to all parties, that's why a Test is called for (and thus skill checks). The presence or need of a Test is what constitutes an Encounter (as a game term - as opposed to any unimportant meeting that happens over the course of a day in the town - i.e. vendors, etc) Sometimes that Goal is simply impressing or determining the "level of success" to decide how much reward or how much affection, or how much appreciation one feels towards the party. As it is undetermined, it is an unadjudicated Test that must be resolved. Since there is still something to determine, there's not 100% agreement on both sides as to how the side people (or groups of people) will feel towards one another. So maybe not "contradiction", but hesistance, reluctance, skepticism, or indifference at the very least.

If a person already has the highest regard for someone, and nothing that the party does is going to change that right now - OR if the NPC is completely nonchalant about the meeting and has no horse in the race, nothing is really to gain or lose, then there's no need for a test - and thus it's not really an Encounter, and there's nothing to challenge and no goal to be reached. If you went to a burger restaraunt, and ordered standard faire, and the cashier is pretty much run of the mill doing his job, there's nothing really to be gained here (you order, you pay, they give - signed sealed and delivered) no tests are in order (assuming you didn't walk in naked or carrying a gun or something that would require some additional work on your part). On the other hand, if you wished to ask for a special option/substitution that wasn't normally on that particular burger, or after upsizing, you realized you didn't have enough money - only an extra 60 cents so you ask the fries to be upsized, and give up the drink upsizing. You may be rewarded or denied in some way based on your charismatic impression you left (Courtesy) or based on someone there knowing something you or something about you (Awe). Sometimes, not only will they give you the usually disallowed substitution, (success!) but they'll extend even an extra bit of bonus "I went ahead and made your drink bigger too - don't worry about it." (greater success).

The same is true in the game; when meeting someone important, it may be necessary for a LM to have an idea how MUCH of an impression they left on someone. In these cases, it is assumed, that the NPC is not yet impressed; though they may not be unimpressed either - just indifferent - or even apathetic - they may simply not care a whole lot - which may be Irime's case. In the case of Gloin you mentioned, he is a dwarf and by nature they are hard to trust outsiders, and are skeptical. Add that to the fact that he is worried for his family/kin, and doesn't want to just send anyone after them. Finally he has delicate info - regarding a note being delivered to Gwaihir, so he's not quick to be doling out this kind of info to everyone. Ultimately, he needs to be confident he's entrusting the quest to the right people. His skepticism and caution is the root of the "Test" with a goal of impressing him. Just how far he's impressed remains to be seen. So the actions/words of the PCs are done in opposition to his skepticism (even if he WANTS to believe that they are right for it) - as they are trying to convince him that they are the capable of doing so, and if may even gain a better reward if they can somehow impress him to significantly. Thus my "contradict" comment. But a better way I could have stated it would have been - something done by the player that challenges the "goal" of the encounter.

If the player for example asked Gloin where the nearest inn was that he may stay at after they return - this would not require a dice roll - as it does not contest or call into question the goal at all. If/when they tell Gloin that they are capable of handling dire circumstances - this WOULD require an AWE check most likely - as this does challenge the goal of Gloin wanting (but skeptical about) being impressed. Similar case for Irime. I agree with Ormazd's take on her. I don't think that she dislikes, or wants to be a curmudgeon towards the players - the "goal" aspect of it would be to be so overwhelmingly impressed that she grants that title/aesthetic reward. If it was easy to be labeled an elf-friend - it wouldn't be easy.

There's a difference between visiting a firehouse to admire the job and firefighters, (note the firefighters have no reason to have disdain for you) that results in an otherwise ordinary outcome for the visit (visitor leaves awed by the whole thing, and the firefighters soon blend their memory of you with the 100 other people they saw that month), and visiting the firehouse, impressing them completely with certain features about you, helping when something freakish happened, saved one of their butts when something major was on the line, and ultimately being so well-appreciated that they let you ride shotgun in the rig on the next call and surely ask that you visit again. They granted the "Fire-Fighter Friend" trait in this case. To raise a NPCs (firefighter or Irime) personal feelings about a person so significantly above that of everyone else they meet - requires a Test (or series of them) as this is atypical of how the NPC would respond/react in most cases to most other people.


In the cases of other types of Encounters, where the goal is not general overall impression but where one side needs something - then the goal and test and 'contradiction' is so much more clearly defined. In the end - what I said about "rolling" vs "not rolling" was in regards to comments/questions made that are related to the goal vs comment/questions that are irrelevant to the goal. Again this is why I said "contradict" but I can see how that is a poor choice of word in some cases.

Regardless, I don't think this style is really all that different from how many others play. I don't see how this punishes certain player types, either. The Encounters are set up to allow players who know their characters are ill equipped for the dynamics of an encounter to allow another to speak for them by proxy. The rules of the game and skills in the game make room for a player just saying "I use Persuade to try and make him see my point of view". This is for players who lack proficiency in public speaking or thinking quickly or what have you. Meanwhile another player who is proficient doesn't need to use "rules speak" to make a difference, he just eloquently states his case in character and the game is far richer for it.

Finally, I feel that the game has plenty of opportunity in most cases to allow players a fair chance of success. Sure they're not going to win "elf friend" and like titles from everyone - which is more believable, or they're not going to be held in the highest eschelon of regards by all and earn they highest level of rewards from all - again which is believable - but the game I feel is rigged towards moderate level of success far more often than not. When you combine the ability to a_) remove players from the pool that would most likley hinder the goal, b_) use of Hope Points, c_) use of auto-successes via 5 traits/distinctive features for each character (many of which really play a wide assistance to conversational encounters especially in the hands of clever players), and d_) Greater and Extraordinary success lending multiple successes tallied towards the goal, this creates IMO a far more than fair player-weighted advantage.

Sometimes I will and do (and have done so in most RPGs I've played) award an auto success when I feel the player made a comment or point that is so powerful and spot-on, that the NPC would have no reason to not accept it, without the need of dice. Many RPGs don't even have a measurable "conversation" skills of impressing or persuasion - it's all done via discretion. Some games that do - players and GMs just simply don't use them, and instead just use discretion - the rules are there to help those who aren't as comfortable with doing so.

[I had a situation once in D&D when a creature had infected the party with a terminal disease/curse for which they had no cure. The PCs were trapped down in a horrible dungeon. The PCs needed info from another creature to learn how to get out. The creature was reluctant to give them the info and taunted them that they had been diseased already and that they would going to die regardless. The dwarf player said "Well it seems were going to die from this disease one way or the other - so we have nothing to lose - we may as well take you with us!" and leaped across the pit with his great axe. It was so perfect, I waived the need for an Intimidate check and simply granted the success, and the creature started talking.]

This I grant you may lead to an unfair advantage for players that are "good roleplayers" vs those who are under-proficient as such - but then again, as a roleplaying game is hinged on personal interaction, I would claim that a shy/socially inept/ackward interpersonal skilled person or someone less than ideal in being crafty/clever with his words, would already be a fish out of water in the first place. Ultimately, I don't think granting an auto success to someone who superiorily impressed me with a point he made is "punishing" another as the rules still exist to allow that person to let his character be persuasive - but instead rewarding of another player. That would be the same as thinking that awarding an Employee of the Year honor to one employee punishes the other 20. It doesn't. It merely rewards the one. Both the Employee of the Year and the player who earns the right for an auto-success does wonders for their peers, too. Others want the recognition of the rewards and strive more the following year, and other players learn from those veteran and aptly skilled roleplayers to do so themselves and earn the ability for an auto success now again. I've seen many players come to my table/campaigns with little or no skill in good roleplaying and in a year's time surrounded by this environment they are a different person completely in regards to their comfort level and proficiency in roleplaying, thinking out of the box, and adlibing/off-the-cuff narration during the game.

Ormazd, this is not directed at you, I'm just going to use your post as my example because it's the most recent one I've seen.

I think there are too many people on this forum eager to use "you're suffering from D&Ditis" as a defense against any legitimate complaint or criticism of the system. It's almost become a group-think cult-like rallying cry.

TOR is a great game, but it's not a perfect game. And there are plenty of places where it can use tidying up, clarification, and/or more streamlined rules. If a more streamlined version, errata, ruleset, or further adventures result as a product of our discussions, that is a *good* thing.

Furthermore, there is the possibility of "methinks the lady doth protest too much" going on; in effect, the game is trying so hard to NOT be D&D, that it inadverently screws something up when there was simply no reason to depart from the more traditional D&D paradigm. Aka: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I understand the desire to depart from D&D in many areas. Storytelling and abstraction are great...but if your hard rules are too muddy, or incomplete, you basically just get a bunch of people sitting around playing make-pretend.

You may continue with your regularly scheduled discussion.

Rob:

I agree with just about everything you posted here.

But the Irime encounter does in fact punish players. If you can't get at least in the 4-6 success region, you can't benefit from having a fellowship focus.

I felt that was an extremely screwy mechanic and I disregarded it entirely.

The problem with your "Fire-Fighter Friend" example (which is funny!) as relates to Irime and Elf-friend is how you (quite rightly) mention the visitor "helping when something freakish happened, saved one of their butts when something major was on the line" as a good reason to become a Fire-fighter Friend.

Except it's all up-front with Irime. There's no "escorted her to Rivendell", "saved her from the evil spirit" or anything else yet. The whole outcome is based on the initial encounter.

The Gloin example is just poor game design. If the players don't roll well, there's functionally not an adventure. It's like a mystery that requires the players to find the secret door on a die roll. If they fail, game over, no matter what else happens. Sure, you can kludge it, but that's still a work around.

But that's not really how that encounter is structured. EVERYONE must make individual introduction rolls, but failures are collective. You could skirt that and allow a few people to "take one for the team" and be stricken with no Fellowship Focus, or everyone tests (as intended) BUT when your three buddies roll before you, you may be penalized BEFORE YOU GET TO ROLL. Irime ignores your presence (0-3 successes) and you didn't even get to roll.

Gloin, Irime, and Beorn, etc, are common encounters (more common than more adversarial types) but don't seem to be structured very well regarding the actual rules. Yes, I can handwave, change, modify, fold/spindle/mutilate the rules all I want, but I shouldn't have to to make it work.

I noticed something else in Those Who Tarry No Longer that might need some attention (according to the level of historical accuracy you want your game to be set in).

In the dream-sequence it is stated that the town of Haycombe is an Éothéod settlement and the dream events take place almost 500 years ago, shortly after Saurons return to Dol Guldur (TA 2460) and before Eorl's ride south (TA 2510). It is said that these Éothéod are a powerful people in the High Pass area.

The chronological problem is that after TA 1977, the Éothéod did not live any longer in this area, having removed to the northern parts of the Vales due to a rising population and being confined in a tight place (probably other men more powerful restricting their ability to increase their territory). Tolkien defines the post-1977 area very clearly, the southernmost point being the confluence of Greylin and Langwell, where these tributaries confluence into Anduin. This point is roughly 150 miles north of the Old Road area.

Thus, according to the sources, it is extremely unlikely to have Éothéod at this place and time (between ca. TA 2460-2510), since they left the area about 500 years before the dreams' events.

IMHO it is not a major problem and the easiest way to fix it subtitute the Éothéod with other Northmen, that most likely live here still at the supposed time. Another rumour/story heard in the Falling Goat might be the recent passing of a great army of riders from the north to a great war further south. Alternatively (to make the attack of the Alderman more fitting; e.g. no other major military forces in the vicinity) would be to relate to the recent departure of this whole folk from the north and the upheavals it brought the Vales with their passing.

Cheers
Tolwen

Nice catch, Tolwen. I hadn't thought of that, but a couple of my players would really appreciate it. I'll try to capture that.

Hey Roc, thanks for that.

Yes, after having looked it over well, I see what you're saying. I'm not really sure just why not impressing her would lead to that restriction.....I'm trying to wrap my brain around why this leads to that specifically. I can understand WHY, I may be better able to accept it or explain it.

That being said, you're right that it is a bit wonky, but as far as I can tell, losing the Fellowship Focus really only has one repercussion: that the player cannot earn back a point of Hope IF that focus wasn't wounded during the game-day. I don't see this as that game-changing - but I do agree it's a bizarre reason for its implementation, and not really sure where the author was going with this.

These examples (and there are others) are just situations where someone who is comfortable with adlibbing and changing things up on the cuff or doesn't really need a whole lot of specific step-by-step procedure are just things that can be ignored or moved around etc.

Often, little nuances like this are spelled out to help people with direction when they're not sure what or how to resolve things. Wonky or not as written, I believe for the most part they are easily adjustable or ignored depending on the LM or group.

I will not argue that a strict reading does tend to make it appear cumbersome or anti-intuitive. And you're right - you shouldn't have to make it work. On the other hand it's not always perfect.

I was mostly giving advice on general encounters. For Irime's encounter after reading it, I would choose when running it - to not make it so cumbersome at the onset, but make a tallying mark through their time spent with her, so as to determine in the end IF they deserve the Elf Friend.

However, since the conclusion is likely delayed in this case, it would be counter to the design to have a player unable to have a fellowship focus since only with failure does this happen, and in doing it via my suggestion, this result isn't found until the end of the adventure.

I would instead put in place the Tolerance - and IF/WHEN that tolerance is met at any point during the journey with her, it THEN activates the consequence of the "no fellowship focus." Though I will want to spend more time trying to determine WHY that is the result and how that makes sense.

I know I'm guilty of this. And for good measure: 30 years of gaming, and 95% of that was D&D through all editions. And while TOR is definitely a separation from the recent editions of D&D, it does tend to be similar in many ways to the earlier ones. So for the most part, my best experiences to draw from and compare is D&D; so I'm really not all that apologetic about making the comparisons, either. My fav edition of D&D was 1st (back with the Unearthed Arcana); so it's not surprise that I find TOR so wonderful in comparison and in my opinion would be a disservice to try and force it to be more like modern D&D. Afterall - for those that prefer that style of tabletop gaming, I think we can all pretty much agree that D&D and Pathfinder have that market covered pretty darn well already.

I couldn't agree more. But clarifications is not the same thing as wholesale changes to make it more like this or more like that. It is still its own game, with facets, nuances, and mechanics that I've never seen the likes of before and feel that they are a great refreshing change.

With this I couldn't disagree more. First - for many people D&D is broke. Primarily those people (such as myslef) who are all old-school grognard players from previous editions who miss the glory days of the story being paramount and rules disappearing in the background. Which with D&D 4th and 3rd is impossible - not to mention their stories are subpar compared to many other 3rd party publishers; but even as awesome as Paizo's stories are with their adventures for Pathfinder RPG - the rules still get in the way and cannot disappear. Second, as I said previously, D&D and Pathfinder have that market well in hand. There's been a HUGE push for a renassaince like movement of old school roleplaying - many companies re-inventing or re-introducing the old school 1st edition (Castles and Crusades) and even basic D&D sets (Frog God Games new Swords and Wizardry series) as well as generic rules light games like the new Savage Worlds game system. To try to just make a clone of the powerhouses of D&D and PF would simply always be doomed to be a poorman's example fail - like RC Cola or XFL, or like many MMOs that follow the same themepark feel of WoW, and can never truly compete. The only way to be successful in that market now, is to be completely different - which is what Pathfinder is hoping to do with their upcoming (and highly anticipated) MMO

Well....that's pretty much what it is. And what it was. Rules bloat was introduced by a failing product about to go bankrupt when Wizards of the Coast bought D&D from TSR. To assist its survival, they ingeniously created the OGL so that many others can write material supported by their rules (which unfortunately came back to bite them in the butt when Paizo proved they can do it better with their rules than they can with their own - which is why WotC is already coming out with 5th edition -- because Pathfinder RPG is way more successful than 4th was), but they also added a bunch of rules at that time, so that those players who come from a more structured mindset (analogous to left brain vs right brain psychology); a generation of people reared in RPGs via electronic game systems through the 90s, with structured parameters, and binary code, that are less comfortable with having to wing everything or narrate, or adlib or in any way ONLY play by make-pretend. In the 80s, you really only learned to play D&D because you had an older brother, or cousin, or uncle or in some other way learned from one who had played it before. It was too foreign and hard to conceptualize to people that had a more math/science minded brain because it was so loosely based. But WotC needed a game that would cater to a younger new generation, and more people, and be able to attract those who do better with a solid set of rules for everything and not rely on Ad Hoc and off the cuff rulings. However the downside to this is there is very little room for creativity to reign because there's already always a rule to handle everything. By keeping things loosely governed and open to many different interpretations, yes it requires a different mindset and outlook to figure it out and enjoy it, and yes it specifically caters to those who prefer that style (which is probably a minority), but it's far more rewarding to those who do. Luckily for those who don't, there are alternatives in much larger markets that cater to more rules crunchy oriented players and gamemasters. So there's no need to wholesale change it to make it more like them. People can either choose to change the system to match their style, or admit it's not to their liking and find a system that is - much like I do with the "rock/paper/scissors" type of rules that some gamesystem VERY open and rules light. Not my style, so I don't play it.

This is not in any way me telling you or anyone else that they should go play a different game - I would never be so presumptive - but it is my way of defending why those of us familiar with D&D can recognize how this is so much (refreshingly) different and call to light someone else trying to rationalize a rule using that more rule-crunchy mindset to look at it. Having to "unlearn" all I've learned from my years of 3rd edition and Pathfinder to truly enjoy and understand TOR, and ensure I wasn't trying to add D&D/Pathfinder aspects to it, was a chore - but a rewarding one.

You may lovelovelove the game, but there's no reason to come into my thread posting off-topic, lengthy and inaccurate philosophical histories of roleplaying game development (hi - I've been full-time game developer since the 90s - I know the folks you're talking about and I know better), pseudo-scientific personality assessments ("left-brain, right-brain" thinker nonsense), or insinuations against others who you feel aren't "comfortable" winging it or gifted with your "mindset" and outlook. That threadcrapping would get you banned on rpg.net. As it is, I'll ask you to kindly stay on topic in my threads at least.

Just to reassure you, I actually like the game, so you can stop your flailing defense.

Indeed, TOR neither requires nor deserves defense.

TOR, like many other (especially small press) games, suffers from some bright ideas with little playtesting. But it's not perfect.

As I've stated, I am more than capable of handwaving or re-designing around the issues. Frankly, that's my day job. People give me their money to make games, so I take it seriously and need to make sure it all works. When I give Franco my money for his game, it becomes his job. If you're going to bother making rules for certain circumstances, make sure they work as intended.

When I started the thread, I was hoping a knowledgeable person might answer the question - am I reading this rule/situation correctly, or is it functionally broken? I think it's pretty clear that it's functionally broken. That's fine. It doesn't impair my fun or make me think bad things about Franco, Gareth, or even some of the overzealous players here. It certainly doesn't require folks to attempt sweeping justifications of play-styles, etc., because an author was trying to do something that just didn't quite work out as expected.

You're right I did threadjack and I apologize. That doesn't mean that left brain (logic/strategy) vs right brain (creativity/exploration) marketing and development is nonsense. It's a physiological fact. 3rd ed D&D is based on strategic combat - owned by the same designers of Magic the Gathering - arguably the most successful strategic based fantasy game. But you're right, threadjacking could get me banned in other communities, so I'll refrain. It's no accident that I prefer to hang out here and other less tyrannical unpleasant atmospheres.

I feel you may have missed the point of my post - I wasn't dissing the game - I was supporting the game as a whole and making points not to change it - and it was not addressed to you so I wasn't defending it from your comments - so no need to assure me that you like it. I dont' know who Franco is but I assure you I wasn't attacking anything any of the writers/designers did - and I am aware that no game is perfect (for everyone). It's a form of art - which is subjective at best. Again I didn't mean to offend, annoy or polymorph anyone into a jerk. So peace out and happy gaming.

So, "Westley", When will you be developing the PB game for Cub7?[B] I'd buy that !!!

See my reply to the 'Tales From Wilderland' update...

Robin S.

I'll reply here, rather than derail the session report thread.

I should probably let my players chime in regarding their enjoyment of the adventure (I only know of one of them that looks at this forum, though). I will say that I never really told them that it was a dream, until they awoke. That said, they figured something weird was up and didn't really seem to buy the idea of time-travel (particularly since they were fully healed and rested when they woke up in Haycombe). At a couple points (mostly when the PCs were knocked out in fights) I gave them visions of Irimë battling with the dark.

My lack of information was intentional, in that I didn't want the players to think that they could just "sit back" and they would wake up with no consequences. I wanted them to believe that they were really in danger while in the dream.

Interestingly, this is a very dark adventure and left the party pretty down at the end (Poppy Brandybuck actually became Miserable and had to deal with a Bout of Madness), which is one of the reasons I was looking forward to it. It's such a departure from the standard fantasy adventure writing. I honestly don't know if my players enjoyed it. I think they were powerfully affected, though, and that's something.

In short, I wouldn't change it at all. I know it seems dark and depressing and frustrating and confusing and hopeless. But I think all those things were intended and part of the experience. I wouldn't want to run very many adventures like that one, but occasionally I think it's very powerful.

O

I'm going to struggle running this one. My experience of 'dream adventures' is not good. I don't really like them and find them quite tacky.

QFT.

Rich, my advice: don't let the party just "tarry" in the pit. If it seems they don't want to really do anything proactive, don't wait around hoping for them to do something. Just move on to the next scene. And don't worry about Irime falling to the Gibbet King; I think it makes for a better adventure if she does.

That's really useful Rocmistro. I'm a way off running "Those Who Tarry" but have been reading the discussion with interest. I'm going to make a note of your advice for when I do. Particularly the bit about not worrying if Irime falls to the Gibbet King. Many thanks.