Just to be sure, you cannot in any way increase the number of Traits (Features and Specialties) you know?

There is nothing in the rules for it; No.

But IMO since these are mostly for Flavour and some minor Mechanical stuff, I would definitely allow Players to change them to reflect character development over time. Maybe not add more, but swap old ones that you think should be removed for new ones.

/wolf

During a Fellowship Phase a character can change one of his Features, but not Specialities (page 172).

Still I think there should be the possibility to increase the number of Specialities.
You should be able to learn how to fish (for example).

There you go then.

Adding more could be a balance issue, depending on how you play it, since it potentially allows for Automatic Success, Advancement and Rolls where you shouldn't get one.

... but if your group is handling this well and the Loremaster keeps some tight reins on it, I don't see a problem.

/wolf

Although, I think that there is a certain amount of logic in characters being able to learn new specialities, to be honest they are largely covered by the common skills.

Being able to fish would probably come under Hunting or Explore, gardening could possibly be Craft, and the many and varied Lore skills are covered under Lore.

For myself I don't think I would allow people to buy new specialities since they are described as, amongst other things, craft secrets. I might, if given a good enough reason, allow a player to change a speciality in the same way as you can change a distincive feature but that would be a very rare occurance.

I tend to allow players to tweak their characters a little within the first few sessions anyway, especially with a new system, as they get used to things and find where the system is different to what they are used to.

Just my thoughts

E

sorry for my english but:
traits are a good game mechanic for players to achieve Advancement Points or to success in actions without dice rolls. So more traits for players = more AP achievement possibilities.

I think it's no good for game balance.

I think traits are fine the way they are. Too many distinguishing features would become difficult to track, so two with the ability to change them during the Fellowship phase is good. As far as specializations go, three is a good number, and I have no problem with not being able to change them as they are not skills but rather things the hero is very good at. If a character doesn't have Fire-making he can still build a fire with Craft, but if he does he is so good he doesn't have to test, even in difficult circumstances.

I'm thinking about using traits this way, tell me what you think:

For every trait, the player will be allowed one automatic success per session, up to TN 16.

In my opinion, this will make my players happy and they won't be overusing it too much.

They will think of their traits as another resource they can rely on when they are not willing to fail or spend a (precious) Hope Point.

The original rule says it's only for easy tasks (TN 12) and you can use it as much as you and your Loremaster want it, right ?

Opinions ?

My thought is that it is good as it is, though you should feel free to change something if you believe that it would work better another way, my own belief is that more traits would start to become pointless.

Basically my understanding is that the Distinctive features are the very noticable immediately obvious quirks. They do not cover the less noticeable ones.

Whereas the Specialities are craft secrets and such, specific areas that the character is better than others in. As mentioned previously, I might allow on a rare occasion, a character to swap out a speciality but that would be mainly because the old one was not really valid and another (still within the culture list) was more valid.

A character can fish, or grow vegetables or swim without these specialities. They simply list the characters areas of expertise, there are common skills which cover most if not all of the areas that the specialities cover.

If you feel that a character wishes to attempt a skill, and you believe that the character should be allowed to succeed automatically then do so. You do not need traits to limit you. As the Loremaster it is completely in your power as to how frequently the players roll for skills. As stated in the Loremasters book, any routine or dramatically irrelevant action should be automatic. Dice rolls should only really be used to build tension and drama.

The traits I believe should be used more for flavour and flair. If a character has a trait relevant to the skill they are attempting you might decide that they succeed in a really cool or flash fashion.

Just my thoughts

E

I like the idea, but I'm unsure of the TN limit w/o playing the game. It's a worthy premise.

I'll be using the trait rules as is. A hero only ever has five of them, they only ever give minimum success (and so are not helpful when extra success is needed), the table can veto cheesy attempts to spam them ("I *generous*-ly share my food with my compatriots, that's an auto success on my Travel test, yes?" "Um, no"), etc. I don't mind if my players each have five areas where they outright rock.

I think traits as written only serve as an advice to the Loremaster, like: "Hey, man, don't ask for a roll everytime, see? They have traits for this! "

So you have "Quick of Hearing", right? The LM says to you:

Since you're quick of hearing, you automatically hear the gruesome sound 6 yards behind you of a drunken lazy old fat hobbit puking beer (TN 12). Isn't that fantastic?
And you think: "Great, one less roll and now I won't be surprised by these little fuckers anymore! Yeah! "

Perhaps you are "Elusive" and the LM says to you:

I've noticed you are elusive, so here's what, I won't even ask for a Stealth roll to hide from those gooses over there in the lake, see? "Maybe they're in the service of the Shadow, who knows?" you think to yourself thankful for choosing the right traits at char gen.

Just kidding ; )

Only my opinion regarding the subject - no need to give autosuccesses for trivial tasks, since most LMs already do that anyway.

Now let's take the power out of the LM and give an autosuccess in a meaningful task chosen by the player (once per session to limit abuse) and now you've got a trait worth having.

Just my two cents

This is my opinion too. They seem to work very well as written.

I think they go a little bit further than you are suggesting. Equating non-difficult actions or actions where failure does not leads to dramatically relevant consequences with trivial actions is reading them down (and by doing so probably setting yourself up in having to cretae a hosue rule to deal with them ).

Yeah, yeah, I see what you guys mean. There's no need AT ALL to houserule this =D

It's just that..

Ask your players if they want to play by my houserule (one auto success per trait per session) or the official rules?

Many players will like this little mod of mine.

You also have to consider abusive players.

I have some players that are so... let's say... creative, that they'll be trying to squeeze ADVENTUROUS into almost any situation.

Almost everyone here will agree that some adjectives are kinda loose, uh?



P.S. sorry for the double post

Sure. Creative is good and as written the LM has discretion here. That's one reason why I would avoid adding a house rule to make things more "certain".

As I posted in another thread the test I use based on the rules as written is that as a GM can I think of something cool if the PC fails. If I can't think of anything specifically, let the autosuccess ride and move the story on to a place where failure can be more dramatic.

I don't see this as just applying autosuccesses for trivial rolls. Its a shortcut for me as a GM to avoid me getting stumped or coming up with wet blanket consequences

On the other hand, every time "ADVENTUROUS LAD" attempts something defensive, circumspect, or low-key, he's not going to be getting any trait help. I don't recommend trying to use "adventurous" in a delicate negotiation. "Why, yes, yes, you can have the mineral rights to everything Erebor produces! Why are the rest of you guys looking at me like that?"

This was also posted in the other Traits thread. I think it's a good example of how auto successes from Traits in TOR may differ from granting successes for trivial rolls:

Is there a way for the Moderator to merge these two threads?

I have posted guidelines that I use.

Trait Use Guidelines for LM

I wouldn't call them houserules really since the rules say it should be with LM's discretion. It's actually just a way to explain how I (me personally) would apply my LM Discretion.

If you like it you can use it.

/wolf