The stiff Neck of Dwarves

[buddhax]

I'll resume the post to Permanent or Temporal Shadow? Temporal seems to powerful.

[Stilts]

It means total shadow, temporary and permanent. I have a similar take on this virtue as you, and searched through the forums here to see what others thought. A lot of people thought it was alright, since Dwarves have the lowest Hope scores in the game (8 to 10).

But here's my opinion on it: if you're getting a decent bonus from stiff neck, you usually don't need to spend Hope anyway. The only time you don't get this bonus is from attacks, protection tests, wisdom/valor tests, and custom skills.

In my group, one of my players created a Dwarf, took stiff neck as her first virtue, and during the first session, attempted to attack one of my Elf players with the intention of gaining 5 shadow points. She went on to use this bonus to astounding effect. She eventually had a bout of madness after about 5 or 6 sessions, which of course is the risk with this virtue, but she was fine with it. The bonus was too good to ignore.

I think I'm gonna house rule this virtue to only provide the bonus to personality skills.

[Blubbo Baggins]

In my group, one of my players created a Dwarf, took stiff neck as her first virtue, and during the first session, attempted to attack one of my Elf players with the intention of gaining 5 shadow points. She went on to use this bonus to astounding effect. She eventually had a bout of madness after about 5 or 6 sessions, which of course is the risk with this virtue, but she was fine with it. The bonus was too good to ignore.

I think I'm gonna house rule this virtue to only provide the bonus to personality skills.

It is powerful, but, there are other in-game drawbacks to having even temporary Shadow. At least, the LM should make the most of those when they come up. I played a PC with this Virtue, and also suffered a bout of madness (was the only PC who did). When they get that permanent Shadow, the LM just needs to take advantage of the fact that they have a negative trait, and make them re-roll the Fate die every-so-often (and take the worse of the two results). Dwarves have low Hope, and if overcoming it means they have to have higher Shadow, that should make the game fun - esp. for the LM who may get a nice moment to narrate a bout of madness.

Instead of house-ruling the Virtue as written, I would simply not allow a player to attack another player, or do anything else, in order to "game" the system. Shadow points should happen in a legit way.

[Stormcrow]

I don't like to dictate what players are and aren't allowed to do. I would let him try to game the system, but it must play out realistically. He gets the Shadow points, he gets the bonus, AND NOW NO ONE WILL TRUST HIM. He just attacked his companion! He's obviously not sane. He should soon gain a reputation from it.

And if all the players go along with this tactic and LET the dwarf attack them, then they're simply happy to allow a madman in their midst. They must be a little mad themselves. If that's the sort of party they want to play, why not let them?

It's important to remember that the character's motivations are not necessarily the player's motivations. One player attacked another player to get a bonus from Shadow points, but one character attacked another because he's mad, and the attacked character didn't retaliate because he's also mad.

[Stilts]

Instead of house-ruling the Virtue as written, I would simply not allow a player to attack another player, or do anything else, in order to "game" the system. Shadow points should happen in a legit way.

I agree wholeheartedly, believe me. I just hate telling a player, "I'm not allowing your character to do that." If they choose certain actions, I let them, but I will enforce consequences. I assumed this virtue's consequence would be a quick bout of madness, but it took longer than I would have liked for all the free passes she was getting. In retrospect, I should have enforced something else, like not allowing her character to contribute to the Fellowship Pool (or draw from it!) until she cleared all of those shadow points she earned from the action.

But aside from all this, the virtue simply doesn't make sense in some cases. How does being stubborn in a shadowy way help you to remember information (Lore), treat a wound (Healing), gauge a person's motives (Insight), or make a plan of attack (Battle)? To me, it's just as bad as the problem people had with the Determined trait being invoked for everything.

[Majestic]

Without being really restrictive, I'd at least encourage players not to try to "game the system". That said, if the player still decided to do something that crazy (like attack another PC), I'd definitely have there be some consequences for such bizarre behavior.

[Corvo]

I don't like to dictate what players are and aren't allowed to do. I would let him try to game the system, but it must play out realistically. He gets the Shadow points, he gets the bonus, AND NOW NO ONE WILL TRUST HIM. He just attacked his companion! He's obviously not sane. He should soon gain a reputation from it.
(...)

I agree with Stormcrow.
And I think that the "realistic" consequence is that the Dwarf isn't a companion anymore: he's booted from the Fellowship. Alternatively, the whole Fellowship ceases to exist, as when Boromir did what he's famed for.

[Blubbo Baggins]

I don't like to dictate what players are and aren't allowed to do. I would let him try to game the system, but it must play out realistically. He gets the Shadow points, he gets the bonus, AND NOW NO ONE WILL TRUST HIM. He just attacked his companion! He's obviously not sane. He should soon gain a reputation from it.
(...)

I agree with Stormcrow.
And I think that the "realistic" consequence is that the Dwarf isn't a companion anymore: he's booted from the Fellowship. Alternatively, the whole Fellowship ceases to exist, as when Boromir did what he's famed for.

You all are right - of course you'd rather not tell the player "no you can't do that". But, I think there also needs to be an explanation about the setting, and that, if you are doing a traditional "heroic" Fellowship game, then all the players need to be on board. If a player is trying to min/max so obviously, that isn't the spirit of the game.

The funny thing is, this IS a system where you could have a legitimate reason for a PC attacking their fellow PCs or something else unusual (with a bout of madness), and the game already has consequences for this happening (permanent points of shadow, negative traits, all leading to eventual loss of PC entirely).

[Robin Smallburrow]

Stormcrow has the right of it here- I don't give a fig for the chances of this fellowship surviving for very long if they can't trust each other! Not to mention the Eye of Mordor 'taking an interest in the dwarf in particular! If I were LMing this the dwarf PC will be harassed by various 'well-wishers':

"Psst dwarf, hey why are you with this bunch of losers? My master can offer you a lot more than you are currently getting for much less risk and hurt to you! Here is a small token of my master's concern...

This is of course how The Shadow operates- attack the Weakest link! Maybe if the dwarf rejects the first overtures the next combat the dwarf is targeted, and later along comes another 'well-wisher'


Robin S

[Glorelendil]

If the companions are still willing to travel with the dwarf, I'd rule that he neither contributes to nor draws from fellowship pool, and cannot be or have a focus.