forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

poosticks7 wrote:(that is officially how the Balrog talks - I read it somewhere)

Tolkien states that Durin's Bane threw some hardcore shade at his foes. Many have taken that as proof that he had wings.

Valdur wrote:I would say that the stats that players are able to attain are for "mortals" and that the limitations they have. The Nazgul have a physical body when cloaked in armor to give them physical manifestation. I would say that just to stand in the Balrog's aura of evil would require a TN 24 fear test. Legolas cried out on fear and I think Aragon was the only one that tried to help Gandalf if memory serves.

The sound of the Horn of Gondor disagree with this statement.

Seriously though, I think the debate between stating a creature like the Balrog, Smaug or other similar big guns can go on for another age of the world or so.
In my games I start with one simple consideration: is that an opponent that my player can face somehow?
If the asnwer is "no" then I'd consider the creature as an environmental hazzard or a scenery effect (like the giants that Thorin & Co saw in the misty mountains or the "thing" that lived near the gates of Moria) rather than a full fledged opponent. It will have a few stats to simulate its main abilities (aura of fear, fiery breath and so on), but nothing more. This way the LM can play around with the numbers a bit more without fear of going overboard with the entire opponent.

To answer the initial question, I think that I would keep the Attribute Level of a Balrog somewhere between 8 and 12 depending on how old and important it was, which should provide him some hefty bonuses, especially if combined with the "Denizen of the Dark" feature.

On the subject of the Nazgul being too weak, I would say this. The power of the Nine is strictly linked to that of Sauron. At the time of DoM, Sauron isn't exactly in top shape. Aside from the lack of the Ring, he was beaten by the White Council just a decade ago. Hence the Nazgul are probably much weaker than they should be.
More than that, what makes the Nine important for Sauron is that they are a stealth weapon. They can blend in among the Free Folks better than any of his agents and strike with deadly precision, rather than overwhelming force.
Creatures like Balrogs or dragons are like a massive maul, the don't do finesse, the spread death and destruction over a large scale. The Nine are more like a poisoned blade, they hit with pinpoint accuracy spread despair. A dragon can destroy an army by burning it to the ground. A Nazgul will kill its leader and let fear do the job.

Woodclaw wrote:In my games I start with one simple consideration: is that an opponent that my player can face somehow?
If the asnwer is "no" then I'd consider the creature as an environmental hazzard or a scenery effect

I prefer to know why players can't take on an adversary. Is it because it's too strong? Too skilled? To scary? Whatever it is, we should be able to represent it in the rules somehow.

Let's imagine a ludicrous edge-case:

LM: "And behind the door you find... a fly!"
Player: "A giant fly?"
LM: "No, just an ordinary one."
Player: "I swat it and move on."
LM: "You can't swat it: it is the greatest fly ever, and you cannot overcome it."
Player: "Why not? What happens when I swat it?"
LM: "It doesn't matter; it is beyond your ability to defeat."
Player: "But it's just a fly! What's stopping me from swatting it?"
LM: "The fly is more powerful than you're capable of imagining."
Player: "How? What's it doing?"
LM: "It's flying around."
Player: "It's just a regular fly?"
LM: "Yes."
Player: "I grab it and squish it."
LM: "You can't."
Player: "Can I make an Athletics roll?"
LM: "No, you it's beyond you."
Player: "Can I attack it with my sword?"
LM: "No."

A stupid example, yes, but it shows how simply declaring something unbeatable without backing that up can fail. Use the stats to show us why the players will fail when they try to take it on, and always give them the option of taking on something unbeatable.

Stormcrow wrote:

Woodclaw wrote:In my games I start with one simple consideration: is that an opponent that my player can face somehow?
If the asnwer is "no" then I'd consider the creature as an environmental hazzard or a scenery effect

I prefer to know why players can't take on an adversary. Is it because it's too strong? Too skilled? To scary? Whatever it is, we should be able to represent it in the rules somehow.

Let's imagine a ludicrous edge-case:

LM: "And behind the door you find... a fly!"
Player: "A giant fly?"
LM: "No, just an ordinary one."
Player: "I swat it and move on."
LM: "You can't swat it: it is the greatest fly ever, and you cannot overcome it."
Player: "Why not? What happens when I swat it?"
LM: "It doesn't matter; it is beyond your ability to defeat."
Player: "But it's just a fly! What's stopping me from swatting it?"
LM: "The fly is more powerful than you're capable of imagining."
Player: "How? What's it doing?"
LM: "It's flying around."
Player: "It's just a regular fly?"
LM: "Yes."
Player: "I grab it and squish it."
LM: "You can't."
Player: "Can I make an Athletics roll?"
LM: "No, you it's beyond you."
Player: "Can I attack it with my sword?"
LM: "No."

A stupid example, yes, but it shows how simply declaring something unbeatable without backing that up can fail. Use the stats to show us why the players will fail when they try to take it on, and always give them the option of taking on something unbeatable.

In general, I agree with you, but I think there are some exceptions to this and Sauron is one of them. Giving Sauron an Attribute Level of 23 and 500 endurance and a parry score of 56 just gets silly and banal and has a dirty, commoditizing (word?) feel to it.

I love MERP, have fond memories of it, but when you find yourself marvelling at Sauron's 1,600 hit points and wondering how many attacks you would need to take him down...something is not right.

You could say in the rules that players need to beat a TN of 64 to hit the fly, but would it be better than saying they just can't hit it?

On the other hand, you don't have to say "you just can't", you can narrate what happens if they try. Let's say your players try hitting Tom Bombadil with a sword. What would happen? Let's say he has a parry of 30, so they miss. You wouldn't just say "you miss him", you'd have to describe something, but the rules are not helping here. It is better, in my opinion, to just decide they can't hit, and have something extraordinary happen. A tree could intervene to stop the blow, or Tom could suddenly happen to be somewhere else, or he would just say "stop that!" and the character would have to stop.

Stormcrow wrote:

Woodclaw wrote:In my games I start with one simple consideration: is that an opponent that my player can face somehow?
If the asnwer is "no" then I'd consider the creature as an environmental hazzard or a scenery effect

I prefer to know why players can't take on an adversary. Is it because it's too strong? Too skilled? To scary? Whatever it is, we should be able to represent it in the rules somehow.

Let's imagine a ludicrous edge-case:

LM: "And behind the door you find... a fly!"
Player: "A giant fly?"
LM: "No, just an ordinary one."
Player: "I swat it and move on."
LM: "You can't swat it: it is the greatest fly ever, and you cannot overcome it."
Player: "Why not? What happens when I swat it?"
LM: "It doesn't matter; it is beyond your ability to defeat."
Player: "But it's just a fly! What's stopping me from swatting it?"
LM: "The fly is more powerful than you're capable of imagining."
Player: "How? What's it doing?"
LM: "It's flying around."
Player: "It's just a regular fly?"
LM: "Yes."
Player: "I grab it and squish it."
LM: "You can't."
Player: "Can I make an Athletics roll?"
LM: "No, you it's beyond you."
Player: "Can I attack it with my sword?"
LM: "No."

A stupid example, yes, but it shows how simply declaring something unbeatable without backing that up can fail. Use the stats to show us why the players will fail when they try to take it on, and always give them the option of taking on something unbeatable.

Off topic: this reminds me of the excellent and hillarious Swedish dub of the Fellowship of the Ring called "Sagan om de Bannlysta" (The Tale of the Outcasts is a close enough translation). The plott is completely changed, and one of the main threats is "The Fly Who Never Came Back Home". Everyone's afraid of it, until Aragorn squishes it. Won't make much sense to the non-Scandinavians here (or it might, actually), but here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsdPvhhdXew

Anyway, back to topic.

-Eirik

Rocmistro wrote:I love MERP, have fond memories of it, but when you find yourself marvelling at Sauron's 1,600 hit points and wondering how many attacks you would need to take him down...something is not right.

Yes, but the important difference in MERP (and all RM derivatives) ist that hit points are important, but not crucial for defeating an enemy.
The core component of these combat systems is that anyone can be killed with a single, lucky strike - however unlikely that is in the face of numerous defensive features. If you can penetrate these and achieve a critical hit (by whatever means), and roll very good, even an otherwise unwounded (i.e. having lost no hit points by now) Sauron is dead from a single lucky hit.
Simply calculating how long you will have to fight (and wound) someone with decreasing his HP's to zero does not work in MERP/RM, as a sooner or later a critical hit will cut it short that way or the other.

Cheers
Tolwen

Stormcrow wrote:

Woodclaw wrote:In my games I start with one simple consideration: is that an opponent that my player can face somehow?
If the asnwer is "no" then I'd consider the creature as an environmental hazzard or a scenery effect

I prefer to know why players can't take on an adversary. Is it because it's too strong? Too skilled? To scary? Whatever it is, we should be able to represent it in the rules somehow.

Let's imagine a ludicrous edge-case:

LM: "And behind the door you find... a fly!"
Player: "A giant fly?"
LM: "No, just an ordinary one."
Player: "I swat it and move on."
LM: "You can't swat it: it is the greatest fly ever, and you cannot overcome it."
Player: "Why not? What happens when I swat it?"
LM: "It doesn't matter; it is beyond your ability to defeat."
Player: "But it's just a fly! What's stopping me from swatting it?"
LM: "The fly is more powerful than you're capable of imagining."
Player: "How? What's it doing?"
LM: "It's flying around."
Player: "It's just a regular fly?"
LM: "Yes."
Player: "I grab it and squish it."
LM: "You can't."
Player: "Can I make an Athletics roll?"
LM: "No, you it's beyond you."
Player: "Can I attack it with my sword?"
LM: "No."

A stupid example, yes, but it shows how simply declaring something unbeatable without backing that up can fail. Use the stats to show us why the players will fail when they try to take it on, and always give them the option of taking on something unbeatable.

I agree with the sentiment Stormcrow, although the example is a bit too much on the weird side. Usually I like the idea that there's a way to beat a opponent, I'm not a fan of no-win scenario (a la Call of Cthulu). As you pointed out there should be a manifest reason for making such a choice.
Case in point, the Balrog is a being of another age made of fire and shadow, as far as I can tell there's no way for the PCs made with the current rule to harm it. No weapon forged by the Free Folks of the Third Age should be able to harm it. Nor any magic wielded by mortal hands should hinder it in the slightest.
From a PC perspective fighting a Balrog should be analogue to fighting a volcano or a rainstorm, they shouldn't have no way to deal with it directly (although they might do it indirectly, like shattering the bridge of Khazad-Dum :p ). As such I don't think that stating the Balrog beside the effects he might dish out upon the characters (fear, darkness, fire etc.) is needed.

A lot of PCs have weapons forged in previous ages, though.

The premise of one of my elven characters is that he got hold of a sword forged in Gondolin, so he's spent much of his time trying to unlock its power (by getting enough Valor points to Grievous Keen and Fell the thing...)

Angelalex242 wrote:A lot of PCs have weapons forged in previous ages, though.

The premise of one of my elven characters is that he got hold of a sword forged in Gondolin, so he's spent much of his time trying to unlock its power (by getting enough Valor points to Grievous Keen and Fell the thing...)

That's a nice way of handling that "shortcoming" in RAW. I'm eager to see what the Rivendell book has about magic items.

I hate to be a munchkin, but getting powerful magic items is a really fun part of RPGs.