Those Who Tarry: Fights

[jamesrbrown]

First, I just wanted to say that my players never get upset about this kind of stuff because it serves a purpose in the overall story. However, they sometimes want to do things that I have said can't be done. The core rules allows them to invoke a Trait to propose an Unforeseen action. If they are successful, I need to re-work some things.

In the case of The Battle of the Hilltop, Gareth wrote it to let the player-heroes experience certain defeat, but then sudden joy when being rescued. Very Tolkienesque. If the players are upset, they aren't catching on.

If a Loremaster can never save the player-heroes without the players getting upset, then I would make sure to ask them if their characters feel the same way. Are the characters upset about the Eagles coming because they would rather die fighting than be rescued? What do they do about it if the Eagles come? In this particular scenario, Gareth actually says the company is outnumbered twenty to one. If they would rather fight every last Orc, then let them go for it and whatever happens, happens. If the Eagles are not received by the player-heroes, that should affect their relationship in the future.

As for what a Loremaster should or should not do, I can't imagine limiting story potential out of fear that a player will be upset. Life is not completely under our control. There are things that happen to us that we cannot prevent. It's what we do in those circumstances that we truly demonstrate our free will. Free will is not a right to be able to control every aspect of our lives (or deaths). For heroes in Middle-earth, many situations may arise that they cannot prevent or possibly live through, but there is always hope. And hope is often about trusting in an outside force to intervene.

I don't know if any of this makes sense? It's awful late at night or early in the morning (depending on your point-of-view).

[jamesrbrown]

Oops! I posted without seeing your post first Gareth! I hope I was accurate in my assessment of why you wrote the scenario the way you did.

[Halbarad]

Should it be clear that they changed the tide? I'm not sure that I agree on that Woodclaw. I have always thought that a perfectly reasonable and satisfactory conclusion to these sort of situations is when the players pause, realise that things 'may' occur in the game that are beyond their ability to deal with (at that moment anyway) and breathe a collective sigh of relief when their 'beloved' characters are not dead.

Having said that., it's a case of 'Horses for Courses'. I just think that the statement(not your statement, I know) that C7 should be ashamed of adding a particular situation to the adventure was harsh, given it's thematic relevance and resonance.

[Beleg]

In retrospect, the huge issue with the adventure isn't the unwinnable fight - it's having two of them in close succession.

This was the main issue I think, especially as we ran through them both in the same session. My players were able to cope with the Eagles because I managed to come up with a reason for their appearance, namely that the Dwarf had sent a raven to look for orcs, had been told there were orcs ahead of them, and then the raven vanished. When the Eagles were rescuing the players I had the raven show up and ask if it had been helpful. The problem arose when my players wanted to defeat the master and save all the townsfolk. However I totally agree that the theme of the adventure definitely captures Tolkien's style. I'll just have to make sure I do a bit more planning and reading of each adventure in future I guess

[Corvo]

In my language, the 20-1 orcs fight isn't an "unwinnable fight": it's a fight against "impossible odds".
I use it freely, and my players accept it, because we know that life is unfair (and fights doubly so). The players can choose to flee, to surrender, to fight and die... or to fight and maybe scrape an "impossible" win. It happened to me once in 25 years of GMing, and my players are still deservedly proud of it.

The Hobbit managed to escape a terrible situation despite the enemy's best effort. So to me it was not an "unwinnable fight", but a fight against impossible odds. Conceding him his (small) victory despite the adventure's script Beleg did the right thing, imo.

What to me is an unwinnable fight is a situation where the players are cheated of their chance to fight (and to die probably, but maybe to surprise you).
Real life example:
GM: -The ninja deftly parried your blow with his bare arm-
Me: -I swung a chain at him. How can he parry a chain?-
GM: -he's a ninja-
Me: -you didn't even bothered to roll te dices-
GM: -I don't need to roll dices. He's a ninja. He disappear in a puff of smoke-

[Woodclaw]

Should it be clear that they changed the tide? I'm not sure that I agree on that Woodclaw. I have always thought that a perfectly reasonable and satisfactory conclusion to these sort of situations is when the players pause, realise that things 'may' occur in the game that are beyond their ability to deal with (at that moment anyway) and breathe a collective sigh of relief when their 'beloved' characters are not dead.

I agree with this and I'm a staunch believer that a setting should not exist only because of the character, I used this approach in all of my games - yes, even D&D - and it usually payed out. What I meant in my post was that creating a situation where the PCs' actions are meaningless because the GM already has a railroaded conclusion in mind and doesn't even allows them to try to change things.
As Corvo observed, what ticks the players off is the feeling that they were cheated out of their chance to contribute and influence the story. Putting the players aganst impossible odds and saving them is fine by me. What is not fine is choosing not to recognize their efforts at the table and bringing the scene to a scripted conclusion no matter what (a mistake a I made repeatedly many years ago).

[Rocmistro]

First, I just wanted to say that my players never get upset about this kind of stuff because it serves a purpose in the overall story. However, they sometimes want to do things that I have said can't be done. The core rules allows them to invoke a Trait to propose an Unforeseen action. If they are successful, I need to re-work some things.

In the case of The Battle of the Hilltop, Gareth wrote it to let the player-heroes experience certain defeat, but then sudden joy when being rescued. Very Tolkienesque. If the players are upset, they aren't catching on.

If a Loremaster can never save the player-heroes without the players getting upset, then I would make sure to ask them if their characters feel the same way. Are the characters upset about the Eagles coming because they would rather die fighting than be rescued? What do they do about it if the Eagles come? In this particular scenario, Gareth actually says the company is outnumbered twenty to one. If they would rather fight every last Orc, then let them go for it and whatever happens, happens. If the Eagles are not received by the player-heroes, that should affect their relationship in the future.

As for what a Loremaster should or should not do, I can't imagine limiting story potential out of fear that a player will be upset. Life is not completely under our control. There are things that happen to us that we cannot prevent. It's what we do in those circumstances that we truly demonstrate our free will. Free will is not a right to be able to control every aspect of our lives (or deaths). For heroes in Middle-earth, many situations may arise that they cannot prevent or possibly live through, but there is always hope. And hope is often about trusting in an outside force to intervene.

I don't know if any of this makes sense? It's awful late at night or early in the morning (depending on your point-of-view).

James, I agree with everything you've said here. I think my criticism of this particular adventure comes in that I it is such a rail-road. My players did not particularly enjoy this adventure, and I confess I had a tough time telling it, because of the combination of devices that make it difficult for the players to feel like they are doing anything other than receiving a narrative. Consider that:

Act 1: The players meet Irime and are pretty much coerced or goaded into helping her; her high and mighty stature almost prevent anyone from declining. On top of that, she is not a particularly warm and inviting person to be escorting. My players had a hard time liking her.

Act 2: The Dream. Whether intended or not, dream-sequences always feel like the character is not in control. That feeling is doubly amplified by the no-win fight from the Alderman, and then the period of the dream in the pit of Dol Guldur, where the characters have actually very little opportunity to do anything. They must sit back and be content to have things described to them by the LM. This was probably the worst part for my players, where they pretty much felt they were being read a story in Kindergarten class. Act 2 is a one-two combination of Rail-road, and then for the grand finale, the players get treated with....

Act 3: At the end of all of this, they must resolve to either dying valiantly or succumb to the Deus-Ex-Eagle. So after getting a double-jab of railroad in Act 2 and taking it on the chin like chimps, they they get a kick in nvts in Act 3 reminding them once again, that they are on a rail-road.

When you take all 3 acts in tandem, this is a tough adventure. I appreciate what Gareth was shooting for and I totally agree with your bit above; it gets annoying when a pedantic player simply MUST be in control all the time for exactly the reasons you state. But I think this particular adventure really strains a player's enjoyment.

PS: Written a little-bit tongue in cheek for dramatic affect and hopefully some humor, I hope no one takes what I've written too seriously.

[aramis]

First, I just wanted to say that my players never get upset about this kind of stuff because it serves a purpose in the overall story.

You have unusual players, then.

I have players I've played with for decades... and they object to any loss of control not explicitly called for in mechanics, and even some of those.

Unwinnable fights are generally a bad idea; winning, however, may be redefined. The fight that can't be won by overcoming the enemy can be "won" by fleeing, or by surrender followed by escape later. But the option to try and stand their ground should be left to the players, never "You're so outnumbered you get captured."

The other thing to remember is that not all attacks need be lethal — TOR isn't D&D, after all — and it's easy enough to KO players in TOR.

[Beleg]

The other thing to remember is that not all attacks need be lethal — TOR isn't D&D, after all — and it's easy enough to KO players in TOR.

Very true. The issue I found when running this was that the first battle took a rather long time, and my players weren't going to surrender in the town, and so that would have been another long, ultimately pointless, battle. Though I also am surprised at James' players

[Woodclaw]

First, I just wanted to say that my players never get upset about this kind of stuff because it serves a purpose in the overall story.

You have unusual players, then.

I have players I've played with for decades... and they object to any loss of control not explicitly called for in mechanics, and even some of those.

Maybe less unusual than you think, I had many groups over the years and I noticed that most of the players I know doesn't object as long as the situation is handled with care and purpose.