forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Indur Dawndeath wrote:

Personally, I don't use auto success till I have 3 AP in a category. Before that, I'd rather go for AP, so I always try the roll. Advancement is far more important than success on any single action.

Sorry Angelalex242, but this is exactly the reason, why I chose to distribute the APs equally between all players.
If you can get an auto success, in a non critical part of the game, to speed up the story and not take an unnecessary risk, then I think you should do that, but if everybody is competing for the APs, then players start taking chances to get the APs they lack.

I my oppinion advancement is definitely 2nd compared to successfully swimming back out from the Marsh dwellers abode, when you have already rescued the Dwarves or another situation where you put the party at risk for no reason except to get another AP...

If one player take chances like that and succeed, then the other players will do the same, because if they don't, then it will just be the reckless player that advances.

Hope I didn't come off sounding like a grumpy old man. I mistook your "I never saw it this way..." post as agreeing with the general notion that invoking traits for auto successes was somehow broken because it was too powerful.

Hi Beckett, I actually don't think that auto success is broken, because it is too powerful, as the rules describe, that you only get auto success when the task is not dramatically relevant. The reason I have for making this change with the distinctive traits, is that it is too difficult to agree on the tests they should apply to. And in my opinion, stated above, you need the actual skill as well. It is not enough to be Tall, you need Awe to be intimidating.

But just to be clear, I am not trying to change any of your games or way of playing, I am simply presenting another way to look at APs and Traits, which really helped my group.

Hi Indur Dawndeath -- I did not think you were trying to change my game. And I'm certainly not trying to change your game. I'm sorry if my post came across that way. I thought I was just adding to the conversation, and trying to help.

You wrote:

"I felt, like many others, that you can argument on auto success for too many things if you are fx: Adventurous, Determined, Energetic.."

This statement is incorrect when you apply the rules as written: A player cannot invoke an auto success if the roll has dramatically relevant consequences or if the action is deemed too difficult to warrant the player passing up a die roll. The Loremaster needs to step in and say, no auto success is allowed under the current circumstances.

You wrote: "It is not enough to be Tall, you need Awe to be intimidating." And I think it circles back to what I was saying regarding the rules as written. A player cannot invoke a Trait (in your example, Tall) if the roll has dramatically relevant consequences or if the action is deemed too difficult to warrant passing up a die roll.

Also, please remember that the player only gets the AP if he succeeds at that Awe roll first, and then invokes his Tall trait and provides a little narrative about how being Tall helped him succeed. It's a mechanic to encourage the player to role-play (to take the narrative from the LM for a second and narrate something entertaining).

If your group needs stricter guideline for AP awards, Francesco Nepitello provided these on his blog. Maybe it will help?

1) AP-for-Trait: if a player succeeds at an action he may invoke a Trait to gain an Advancement point. Additionally, this is the only way to get a point if two circles out of three are already checked.
2) if a player succeeds at an action with TN above 14, he gains an Advancement point (unless it's the third in a row)
3) if a player succeeds at an action producing a great or extraordinary success, he gains 1 Ap as above (not third circle).

The main thing with any rpg is that it has to be right for your group, and every group is different. Francesco and the TOR writers seem (sensibly) to encourage house rules and I am always interested in other people's take on things.

My own group had some initial misgivings about the Advancement Point system and the potential risk of the louder players drowning out the more laid back ones, but after a few sessions now under our belts, we seem to have got past that concern. To avoid the potential for a slightly cheesy-gamey feel to a request for a Trait related AP, I simply require my characters to give a brief roleplay-oriented description as to how their trait use impacts on the skill. If someone makes the group laugh or impresses us, then yes, there is a certain AP for that companion!

We have had no problem with the auto-success option for Trait use either, and again I encourage my companions to give a brief roleplay-oriented description as to how their trait use leads to such an auto success. Doing this encourages all of the players to be more involved as they all feel that they are contributing to the story (and the Trait system is actively encouraging their participation).

Imho an rpg should be more about the story and less about the mechanics (although I accept that it is naive to think that bad mechanics assist in forming a good group narrative). If your group finds something that rankles with them, then fix it by all means. I do not personally think that the TOR rules on Traits and Advancement Point as written are bad or broken, and have found them to work well if persevered with, but that may reflect me and my group's approach.

cheers
Mark

Cawdorthane wrote:The main thing with any rpg is that it has to be right for your group, and every group is different. Francesco and the TOR writers seem (sensibly) to encourage house rules and I am always interested in other people's take on things.

My own group had some initial misgivings about the Advancement Point system and the potential risk of the louder players drowning out the more laid back ones, but after a few sessions now under our belts, we seem to have got past that concern. To avoid the potential for a slightly cheesy-gamey feel to a request for a Trait related AP, I simply require my characters to give a brief roleplay-oriented description as to how their trait use impacts on the skill. If someone makes the group laugh or impresses us, then yes, there is a certain AP for that companion!

We have had no problem with the auto-success option for Trait use either, and again I encourage my companions to give a brief roleplay-oriented description as to how their trait use leads to such an auto success. Doing this encourages all of the players to be more involved as they all feel that they are contributing to the story (and the Trait system is actively encouraging their participation).

Imho an rpg should be more about the story and less about the mechanics (although I accept that it is naive to think that bad mechanics assist in forming a good group narrative). If your group finds something that rankles with them, then fix it by all means. I do not personally think that the TOR rules on Traits and Advancement Point as written are bad or broken, and have found them to work well if persevered with, but that may reflect me and my group's approach.

cheers
Mark

I could not have said this better myself, Mark. I am in agreement with you.

Many thanks for all the feed back. It is always nice to hear what other people think.
And the way Traits are used in TOR is actually a fantastic approach.

I was thinking to expand the negative Trait list, after seeing the Bloated Temporary Trait, you get if you eat too much.
I wanna make them as Cards to give the players if their actions cause them to have a temporary effect.
And as the rules state, if the description applies to the current encounter, then he will have to pick the worst of two feat dies once per scene.

Tired
You are so tired, that it requires all of your willpower just to stay awake.

Hungry
You have not eaten for a long time and it starts to show. You look pale and your energy is low. All you think about is food.

Diseased
You are sick. One moment you sweat the next you are freezing. Your skin is burning hot and you cough all the time. You look pale and you shake, when you are freezing.

Bloated
You have eaten too much in too short a time. You stomach is so full, that you cannot bend down without farting. You want to puke, piss and shit at the same time, but the queue to the toilet is too long!

Please expand the list, if you agree that it could be fun to have these negative effects handy.

Cheers
Rune

Indur Dawndeath wrote:I was thinking to expand the negative Trait list, after seeing the Bloated Temporary Trait, you get if you eat too much.

Bloated
You have eaten too much in too short a time. You stomach is so full, that you cannot bend down without farting. You want to puke, piss and shit at the same time, but the queue to the toilet is too long!

Just to be clear to everyone, that's not how I worded it in my supplement. I obviously show far too much class to be so crass.

I'm also a poet.

And a sex god - but that's another story.

Just to be clear to everyone, that's not how I worded it in my supplement. I obviously show far too much class to be so crass.

Hi Rich, I know
But it never hurts to have more options for the same Trait. I bet it will make my primitive Group of players laugh, when I give this to a player, just before young Aragorn walks into the Easterly Inn, asking for the whereabouts of Gollum And while they are talking to Aragorn, the waitress accidentally drops something. With a seducing smile she asks the player to please pick it up for her. What to do, what to do...?

This is of course very very late in the game session...

/Rune

Hope I didn't come off sounding like a grumpy old man

Not at all. I also wonder why everyone forgets the dramatically relevant part. I certainly had done. Maybe it's only mentioned once whereas the rest of the rules surrounding APs is mentioned more? :S