Getting players to work as a team

[Sprigg]

How do you guys encourage your players to aid each other? In the last session I ran, the players were jumped by spiders in Mirkwood. Near the end of the encounter, one of them was paralyzed, bound up and being drug up into the trees. The spiders the other two we're fighting were obviously mortally injured, missing legs and oozing everywhere, trying to escape. Instead of aiding their obviously ensnared friend, they chose to pursue the spiders first, which nearly resulted in the paralyzed Barding being drug into the trees. Eventually he was rescued, but just barely.

It would have made for an interesting side-adventure, rescuing him, but it was very disheartening when they didn't attempt to help when given the chance. I even tried reminding them of the defend ally action (one of them always plays defensive stance) and to play up the fellowship focus hope recovery/shadow gain aspect and it didn't phase them, likely because one player in particular doesn't seem to be sold on the hope/shadow thing.

[Scafloc]

If there's a situation like the one you described, I'd say to my players how many rounds it would take for the character to die. If he is unconscious, paralyzed and carried away by giant spiders it would'nt take very long I reckon. If they don't listen to soft drives, go mathematical about it and make them understand that their companion is in grave danger of dying in, say three rounds?

[Stormcrow]

Why should you encourage them? Let them act as they please; the game will do the encouraging. When they're in a situation where they could have helped a friend and didn't, slap 'em with some Shadow. Don't do it frivolously, though: if they have a roundabout plan that they think will help a friend, don't immediately penalize them because it doesn't look like they're helping. Hand out Shadow only after the scene is over.

In Tolkien there are many places where a character is given a choice between the good of a friend and the greater good. The correct choice is always friendship. Boromir sacrifices his life, and his chances to help Minas Tirith, to try to save two useless hobbits from orcs. Aragorn gives up following Frodo and the quest to try to rescue those same hobbits. They both chose friendship. Turin, on the other hand, chooses not to save Finduilas and to go help his family in Dor Lomin (and take up his lordship) instead. He chose wrong, as he soon learns.

When your players make the wrong choice, the one not in favor of friendship, sooner or later they'll get Shadow for it.

[SirKicley]

At the end of that encounter, I would have assigned Shadow to the group for choosing wrath (chasing dying spiders) over heroism to save a dying friend.


Then give the "dying" friend a Wisdom roll check to see if he too gains Shadow for thinking his friends abandoned him.


Like Stormcrow said - it's best to let the chips fall where they may. Let the players behave according to what they really want to do - don't railroad them (though gentle reminders are nice). Assess at the end, and adjudicate your findings over it.

The Shadow Points SHOULD remind players that this is a FELLOWSHIP game of heroism and they should act accordingly if they do not want to wind up like Grima.

On the other hand, you may have players who simply don't want to play a game that so heavily penalizes player-characters for such choices and have to contend with the true good heroism vs evil. They may simply want to play a "hackmaster" game of smash and grab without the moral dilemmas. If so, this may not be the right game. I would suggest having an honest sit-down with them and feel them out. How much do they truly grasp the Tolkien-esque themes and flavor? The game is meant to capture that. Maybe they don't understand that, or maybe they don't want it, or maybe they're just not used to it and it's likely to auto-correct with the introduction of some Shadow and a reminder.

Robert

[Rich H]

Instead of aiding their obviously ensnared friend, they chose to pursue the spiders first, which nearly resulted in the paralyzed Barding being drug into the trees. Eventually he was rescued, but just barely.

Poor paralysed guy (and player)! ... I think there are certainly some opportunities for character development there on both sides - the Barding that was left helpless and those that so recklessly left him. Perhaps they are playing in character though, without further information as to their character's personalities/traits we don't know - they could be reckless and hot-headed. Maybe in the situation they 'lost themselves' and weren't thinking straight so plunged headlong after the spiders for fear that they were going to get help? Probably worth you as the LM asking the players to vocalise what their characters are thinking, feeling, and the reasons behind their actions.

I even tried reminding them of the defend ally action (one of them always plays defensive stance) and to play up the fellowship focus hope recovery/shadow gain aspect and it didn't phase them, likely because one player in particular doesn't seem to be sold on the hope/shadow thing.

What is it about the Hope/Shadow dynamic do they not seem to be sold on? Is it that they don't believe you when you say what it does? Do they not think it will happen often? Do they not think it's dangerous?

[Sprigg]

Awesome responses, guys! I definitely think it's a good place to talk with them about their motivations as they're still working on bits of personality and such. They tried to deceive someone about acquiring some ponies (they were given them by a dwarf wandering the old road, and they later found out he stole them from an elf-camp, then they didn't lie to the elves guarding the docks at the river running, but didn't admit to knowingly riding stolen animals.). I have them all an immediate shadow point and I think that kinda sunk it in a little, and it'll force the Beorning player (who is almost always a cunning sneaky manipulative rogue type in other systems) to play a different kind of character.

As to the hope/shadow, mr sneaky Beorning sees it as more bookkeeping and I simply don't think the impact the system has on the game, thematically and mechanically, is apparent to him yet. The emphasis on fellowship, in contrast to the self interest that usually drives us in our d20 games, hasn't sunk in yet either, even with a lot of exposition on this from myself and the most informed player (the poor paralyzed Barding).

[Woodclaw]

I have to agree with Stormcrow and SirKickley: Shadow is a very real problem in the game, not just a bookeeping thing. Especially because it's a very slippery slope. I have a player who think Shadow is something he can easily burn away during Fellowship phases and I dread the moment he will realize it's not that easy.
Still, I think that the best way to understand the danger is for them to samsh into it face first.

[Rich H]

As to the hope/shadow, mr sneaky Beorning sees it as more bookkeeping and I simply don't think the impact the system has on the game, thematically and mechanically, is apparent to him yet. The emphasis on fellowship, in contrast to the self interest that usually drives us in our d20 games, hasn't sunk in yet either, even with a lot of exposition on this from myself and the most informed player (the poor paralyzed Barding).

... I think you need to bring the affects of Shadow to the fore a little more then. Shadow isn't just about Blighted Lands and corrupted places it can also relate to PC witnessing disturbing scenes such as death, murder, slavery, suffering, etc; especially if these elements relate to people the PCs care about (eg, friends, family, fellowship focus). If you start using it in these regards and asking how such things make their characters feel then I think you'll gradually get them understanding how Shadow and Hope work.

[Cawdorthane]

I agree with the above posts [particularly that of Stormcrow] urging you just to let the chips fall where they may and to apply the Shadow rules. Abandoning a friend to the Spiders through a reckless pursuit, even if driven by the other companions roleplaying their own characters, is certainly worth a Shadow point each and absolutely so in the case of any companion with the Barding as their Fellowship Focus.

My own group of players have just completed our fifth session of TOR and are only just getting the real hang of the co-operative Fellowship driven nature of the system, but I felt real satisfaction when one had a Eureka moment and said last night "We are not a Fellowship of Individuals, we are a group of Individuals who combine to form a Fellowship". TOR is not a race between players to create the best killing machine or who has the best common skills and really all of its elements seem calculated to promote co-operative action

Sadly I had one player do a dummy spit because he felt his character was not earning enough Advancement Points relative to other Companions, even though that was because that player had pushed up his weapon skills with his initial character design points [against my advice] and was barely trying to use his own Common Skills to advance the story [in part because he had so many level 1 skills with only a faint chance of success due to his own decisions at character design stage]. He is a great roleplayer in other systems which promote individual play but is struggling with TOR, although I hope he will eventually lift his game... I have explained that it really does not matter which companion is succeeding in common skill tests to advance the story for the benefit of the Fellowship, as long as the story is in fact being advanced by the companions, and imho earning AP's is not a measure of who is the better character or player (rather at best it shows who is more actively trying to help their Fellowship, hint, hint).

Personally I usually prefer to reward "good" roleplaying within a system that advances the story rather than to punish "bad" behaviour. But I think the application of Shadow points is an integral and important part of TOR. For my part, I would certainly have warned the spider-ensnared Barding's companions that leaving him to his fate was not a 'good' thing to do, and then later imposed temporary Shadow points on those who did just that and ignored my warning. I certainly would not have allowed any free Hope recovery for any companion who had him as their Fellowship Focus. I would also have given the Barding companion final say on how the Fellowship Points could be allocated for that session.

And so TOR is not for every one in every group. But I think that those who persist with it will be well rewarded by the satisfying roleplay opportunities it creates. I consider that the whole concept of "fellowship" [an old fashioned word I truly love], as essential as that was to Tolkein's writing, is brilliantly woven into the theme and systems of TOR. Whilst for others who would rather metagame or like to play roguish characters who set out as much to impede their friends' progress than to aid it or who simply would rather do their own character's "thing" [whatever that may be] and to Hell with the consequences, will all struggle with TOR and quickly win lots of extra points in their Shadow box....

cheers
Mark

[Angelalex242]

I concur. Rot the SOBs with Shadow. If they can't get it, explain Shadow is effectively equivalent to Dark Side Points in Star Wars, and just like Star Wars, once you start down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny...