What I would like to see in future rules

[Hermes Serpent]

LMs can't be expected to go through the forums or blogs for these sorts of clarifications.

Clarifications are really the biggest thing for me, and I'm sure the RE will do a lot to alleviate that. I find that we have some problems around Encounters, simply because the amount of rigidity rules-wise actually ends up fighting against roleplaying.

I'm confused. How would someone know that they had not understood a rule or concept unless they frequented a forum and saw alternative interpretations? If they didn't know or hadn't read a forum discussing that would they be any worse off playing how they believed it should be played? I don't believe so.

How are Encounters too rigid? I see plenty of requests for guidance on how they work because they don't seem to be structured enough by the requesters and if they were rigid surely everyone would be able to follow the railway line from start to finish?

[Rich H]

I'm writing one for Ruins of the North.

I'm very interested in this.

I'd love to be able to say more and I'm sure we will closer to the publication of "Ruins..." but until then I'm afraid I can't.

[Heilemann]

I'm confused. How would someone know that they had not understood a rule or concept unless they frequented a forum and saw alternative interpretations?

Because the rule was vague or poorly explained to begin with? Whether from bad wording or poor organization, or simply vague wishy-washy rules that require too much interpretation. You're mistaking 'misunderstanding a rule' with 'not understanding a rule'.

How are Encounters too rigid? I see plenty of requests for guidance on how they work because they don't seem to be structured enough by the requesters and if they were rigid surely everyone would be able to follow the railway line from start to finish?

For a number of reasons:

1) They bring structure and rigidity to the situations that are normally guided mostly by actual role playing. That's good of course because it means that it is the character, not the player who has strengths and weaknesses, and as such it is truer to the fiction of the game. However, in actual play I've run into several situations where a player will role play his heart out, and according to the way encounters are set up, I'm supposed to nevertheless ask him to make a skill check for what he's trying to do. Now I can mod that based on his 'performance', and that's generally acceptable. But last time we played we had just that situation, and the player was so convincing that I couldn't in good conscience ask him to roll, because it would ring hollow if he then ended up failing. That's a classic RPG problem of course, and I respect that TOR attempts to tackle it; but it's problematic nevertheless. On the flip-side, if you enforce the system too much you're also beating the role playing out of the situation, and it becomes a series of "I try to Awe him to do so-and-so", rather than it being acted out.

2) Not all social interactions are Encounters. But it's unclear which ones are supposed to be.

3) Starting an encounter feels very mechanical. There's no mention of what happens if in the middle of an Encounter where a spokesperson has been chosen someone from the group pipes up about something.

And "Just LM your way out of it" isn't an answer when we're talking about the core text that is supposed to teach people how to run the system.

[Glorelendil]

Mmm....I sympathize with the desire to reward a player for "good acting", but does that mean players who aren't great improvisers are at a relative disadvantage?

If I can act out a spectacular combat maneuver can I get a bonus on my attack roll?

So I disagree that structure "beats the role-playing out of the system." The quality of the role-playing doesn't have to influence outcomes, it can simply be to entertain your friends by interpreting the results of the rules. It's a question of whether role-playing drives the mechanics, or vice versa.

Example: My Man of the Lake, with two points in courtesy, failed epically (Sauron) trying to chat up a female traveling merchant from Gondor. So I had fun explaining how he completely misidentified her attire, thinking it meant she was 'single and looking' when in fact she was in mourning over her dead husband, and ended up offending her. And I did it through descriptive narration, not voice acting.

Or think about Hobbit Tales: except for a small bonus for the best storyteller, the outcome has nothing to do with the quality of improvisation.

That said, if other people want their own persuasiveness to map to their character's persuasiveness, that's perfectly valid. Just sayin' that it's not the only definition of role-playing.

EDIT: P.S., I do agree about the vagueness of the encounter rules. I'd like for it to be as explicit...and rich...as the combat system. It's only about halfway there, methinks.

[Heilemann]

Well you point out another rub. Yes, if you're interpreting the roll and acting after it, you're good. However, I'm blessed with players who at times are are so eager that often times they'll throw themselves into the role playing part before declaring what they're doing; as they're used to from any other game, simply reacting to the situation rather than looking through their skill list to see what options they might pull on. And when they do, again I can't bring myself to "Stop, stop, stop! I'm going to have to interrupt your otherwise great bit of acting, and ask you what exactly you're trying to do? Which skill are you using here?"

Again, I completely appreciate the notion of the system, but I'm definitely having some trouble implementing it.

[Glorelendil]

Well you point out another rub. Yes, if you're interpreting the roll and acting after it, you're good. However, I'm blessed with players who at times are are so eager that often times they'll throw themselves into the role playing part before declaring what they're doing; as they're used to from any other game, simply reacting to the situation rather than looking through their skill list to see what options they might pull on. And when they do, again I can't bring myself to "Stop, stop, stop! I'm going to have to interrupt your otherwise great bit of acting, and ask you what exactly you're trying to do? Which skill are you using here?"

Again, I completely appreciate the notion of the system, but I'm definitely having some trouble implementing it.

So after their great bit of acting, they roll. If they fail, they narrate why it failed despite their incredible persuasive skills.

"Turns out I shouldn't have compared the depth of his wisdom to the Great Sea because he lost his eldest son to a shipwreck there. Oops."

[Rich H]

Well you point out another rub. Yes, if you're interpreting the roll and acting after it, you're good. However, I'm blessed with players who at times are are so eager that often times they'll throw themselves into the role playing part before declaring what they're doing; as they're used to from any other game, simply reacting to the situation rather than looking through their skill list to see what options they might pull on. And when they do, again I can't bring myself to "Stop, stop, stop! I'm going to have to interrupt your otherwise great bit of acting, and ask you what exactly you're trying to do? Which skill are you using here?"

Again, I completely appreciate the notion of the system, but I'm definitely having some trouble implementing it.

So after their great bit of acting, they roll. If they fail, they narrate why it failed despite their incredible persuasive skills.

Agreed!

The way Heilemann describes how his group RP is something I always find a little strange as it causes so many issues at the gaming table with all RPGs in the way Elfcrusher's described. I find it perplexing when I see people game like this as they're just creating problems for themselves.

I've always gone with the following (summarised) approach:

1) Set out what the desired result or objective is for the action/test/interaction currently being addressed
2) Make the roll (or whatever the RPG system you're currently playing requires you to do)
3) Obtain the result - ie, failed, succeeded, fumbled, critical success, etc
4) Roleplay out the result

That way you don't get issues where somebody RPs a fantastic persuade on some NPC, rolls and fails, and then the result looks stupid based on the initial interaction.

[Heilemann]

I don't disagree; but old habits die hard. D&D didn't exactly play up social interaction mechanics.

I think there's another issue at play here, which is motivation. Players are motivated to act their heart out if the result can be swayed, but if it's a foregone conclusion, as you're describing, the motivation is there only if it's a group that thrives on performances. Which is not always the case, and I might be wrong, but I don't think it's the case with my group. I think they're simply too results-oriented. "The roll already failed, let's move on to the next thing."

[Rich H]

I don't disagree; but old habits die hard. D&D didn't exactly play up social interaction mechanics.

I agree and it's not just D&D. Social mechanics are often seen as the red-headed step child of RPG rules; the main reason being that some players have an issue with the loss of character control.

[Heilemann]

Sorry, I edited while you replied.