The Defensive Stance "Problem"

[Glorelendil]

An adversary with Deadly Elusiveness active will be elusive. That is, if the Loremaster gets to do the pairing of combatants, the adversary with Deadly Elusiveness active will not choose a hero in Forward stance. However, I don't know what is supposed to happen if all heroes in close combat are in a Forward stance and the adversary does not have enough comrades to protect him in Rearward stance.

If the heroes get to do the pairing, a hero in Forward stance may not pair up with an adversary with Deadly Elusiveness active.

To resolve the apparent problem of being forced to pair the adversary with a hero in Forward stance, I can see a few possible solutions:

• Pair them up, but the hero attacks with a +2 TN penalty (as if he were in Open stance). The hero is still fighting in Forward stance, so the adversary attacks at the normal TN.
• Pair them up and force the hero into an Open stance.
• Pair them up and refund the adversary his Hate point.
• Declare the adversary an automatic noncombatant for the duration of this round.

Hmmm, I'm having trouble parsing this, too. My reading is that if a hero "engaged" with this enemy is in Defensive stance, he won't be able to even try to strike back. Narratively that means the adversary is so slippery and quick that he springs in, attacks, and springs away. Or he's using a ranged weapon or using Dreadful Spells or something.

[Stormcrow]

Oops! I mistakenly thought Deadly Elusiveness prevented heroes from attacking adversaries while in Forward stance, not that they had to be in Forward stance to attack them.

Never mind; nothing to see here.

[Murcushio]

Worth noting that nothing is stopping your awesome bowman in Rearward from killing the hell out of something with Deadly Elusiveness.

[zedturtle]

Two "solutions" for the issue. I just don't like them as they're just patches to cover the real problem.

What is the real problem? That highly competent heroes are hard to hit in combat? Yes, we need ways to threaten folks that have four dice in combat skills; that doesn't mean that they need fear every random goblin...

[Glorelendil]

Two "solutions" for the issue. I just don't like them as they're just patches to cover the real problem.

What is the real problem? That highly competent heroes are hard to hit in combat? Yes, we need ways to threaten folks that have four dice in combat skills; that doesn't mean that they need fear every random goblin...

You know, that just made me realize something. One of my criticisms of TOR has been that higher "level" characters hit more often and do more damage but they are just as easy to hit and kill (gear bonuses excepted). But, as you allude to above, if you never/rarely have to leave Defensive stance then you are harder to hit and kill.

[Murcushio]

To be honest, I see a lot of talk on this board about how people utilizing certain mechanics is "a problem", and it always baffles me.

The Defensive Stance thing is example one. Yes, people don't leave defensive stance unless they're using one of the specific combat moves like Intimidate Foe that requires them to do so. They do so because they would rather not die. One of the ways characters reflect their power growth is by becoming harder to hit and kill. Most cultures have either a Virtue or a Reward that does that, in addition to the fact that if you're rolling five dice in your primary weapon, you can hit a higher TN.

That doesn't seem like a problem to me. There are only two ways it would be a problem; the first is if game balance was such that players being able to camp in Defensive all the time broke the game. Given the presence of things like Great Orcs and Snow Trolls, and the fact that swarms of lesser creatures can create large tactical advantages due to weight of numbers, that doesn't seem to be the case. (To say nothing of foes that strike at you via Valour and Wisdom tests.)

The second way it would be a problem if the game had mechanics that were being completely ignored and are weren't being used, because that reflects poor design. Hey, guess what! They addressed that in Revised Edition, by increasing the rewards of the actions you can take in Forward and Open.

Most (not all, but many) of the "solutions" I see for "forcing" players out of Defensive seem to involve sort of goad, an explicit punishment mechanic for wanting to play well and not die. That seems problematic on many levels.

This comes up in other mechanics presented as "problematic" as well. Corruption is the other big one. Apparently, a lot of Fellowships are composed of characters who are trying to do the morally upright thing in a harsh world, and work hard to cleanse the stains on their souls left by doing things like spending eight months in Mirkwood playing cat-and-mouse with Tyulquin.

People seem to see that as a problem and it baffles me. It always seems to boil down to "even though these characters invest a ton of roleplaying effort in being a good person and a ton of mechanical effort into investing multiple Fellowship Phase and Advancement Points into getting rid of Shadow points, that's not good enough. People should be getting Miserable and suffering Bouts of Madness no matter what."

And it's like, hey. Maybe the players have something to say about that? Because, you know, becoming Miserable and suffering a Bout of Madness is something they have a lot of control over. They can spend Hope like it grows on trees and never cleanse their Shadow and it'll happen. Shadow offers a player two choices! They can let it build up and deal with the consequences, or they can jump through a lot of hoops and it won't really be a thing. What's wrong with that?

And then there's Fatigue, which I won't even get into right now.

[Glorelendil]

an explicit punishment mechanic for wanting to play well and not die.

I was largely agreeing with you up till this point. I think much of the critique simply stems from the fact that 2/3 of the stances stop being used at higher levels. I don't think anybody wants to force players to use those stances, we would just like to see a game where choosing stance is an interesting decision, rather than an obvious one.

This comes up in other mechanics presented as "problematic" as well. Corruption is the other big one. Apparently, a lot of Fellowships are composed of characters who are trying to do the morally upright thing in a harsh world, and work hard to cleanse the stains on their souls left by doing things like spending eight months in Mirkwood playing cat-and-mouse with Tyulquin.

"People should be getting Miserable and suffering Bouts of Madness no matter what."

Again, I think that's a mischaracterization of the critique. The issue (at least to me, and I believe to others) is that the Hope/Shadow mechanic, along with Miserable and Shadow Madness, was designed to be an important part of the game, but people are reporting that it rarely comes up. If, as you describe, that's because everybody is doing everything they can to never get Shadow, and then spending all their Fellowship phases cleansing, then maybe it's not a problem. But that's not the impression I get; it sounds to me like Shadow is just a big /shrug. Which is too bad.

To draw an analogy: if people were reporting that fights were too easy and monsters were dying to single hits all the time, and there were calls to make the monsters more dangerous, would you describe that as "punishing" players? I don't think you would.

[Murcushio]

I was largely agreeing with you up till this point. I think much of the critique simply stems from the fact that 2/3 of the stances stop being used at higher levels. I don't think anybody wants to force players to use those stances, we would just like to see a game where choosing stance is an interesting decision, rather than an obvious one.

I will concede that it could be a lot more interesting than it actually is, yes, but I would note that the way to do that is to make the other stances more attractive, rather than making Defensive Stance less attractive.

Or, to put it another way; unless the entire combat system is redesigned from the ground up, leaving Defensive Stance exposes you to a massively increased chance of getting extremely fucked up and mangled. The reward for doing that had better be commensurate with the risk. It can't just be "well, this fight is never going to end unless you leave Defensive, so suck it up, mates."

My own current PC leaves Defensive Stance a lot; she has a high Awe score. But it's so dangerous to do that it usually isn't without a buddy watching her back and with a definite plan in mind, as opposed to "LEEEEEEEROY JENKINS!"

(I have Leeroy'd it up a few times, mind you, but never in situations where it would impinge grossly on the rest of the party if I fell on my face. It's a group game, you make compromises that aren't strictly speaking in character.)

Again, I think that's a mischaracterization of the critique. The issue (at least to me, and I believe to others) is that the Hope/Shadow mechanic, along with Miserable and Shadow Madness, was designed to be an important part of the game, but people are reporting that it rarely comes up. If, as you describe, that's because everybody is doing everything they can to never get Shadow, and then spending all their Fellowship phases cleansing, then maybe it's not a problem. But that's not the impression I get; it sounds to me like Shadow is just a big /shrug. Which is too bad.

See, the thing is, I attribute that to GM choice rather than mechanical failure.

If your Fellowship is tooling around the Vales of Anduin (not Mirkwood or the Grey Mountains or some of the places in Eriador that are really pitch black) and not getting into particularly brutal conflicts or dealing with magical foes, then they really shouldn't build up any Shadow, because they're not doing much that can affect them as hero-types. But you know what, it isn't hard for a GM to send players into the blackest pits of Middle-earth, and to confront vile monsters from beyond the depths of time, exposed to horrors people weren't meant to see.

That should prompt all kinds of Corruption tests, some at very high TNs. Now, maybe your players feel strongly enough about avoiding Shadow that they're going to spend all their Hope to make those. In which case, I would say the mechanic is working as intended. They have an interesting choice; deal with Shadow gain, or spend Hope. Every point they spend avoiding Shadow is a point unavailable for stabbing Trolls in the face or making a vital Protection test.

There's a possible out there; if you have heroes with 5 or more Wisdom, they're often going to make even TN 20 Corruption tests without needing to spend Hope. In which case, my response would be that you have guys who have sunk between twenty and sixty experience points into buying Virtues and are seasoned heroes. Those guys deserve to not have to deal with Shadow gain except in extraordinary circumstances, like fighting the Nazgul. At that point you're basically Aragorn.

If you have a bunch of guys who only have Wisdom 2 or 3, and they're not just hanging around in forgiving terrain not fighting vile monsters, then they should either be gaining Shadow on a regular basis or having to go to great lengths (Hope expenditure, Fellowship phases) to avoid it. If they're not having to do either, if shadow for them is a big /shrug, they're either the luckiest rollers in the world (that happens; we have a guy in my Fellowship who rolled seven Gandalfs in a row on Valour tests) or the GM isn't testing for Corruption enough.

To draw an analogy: if people were reporting that fights were too easy and monsters were dying to single hits all the time, and there were calls to make the monsters more dangerous, would you describe that as "punishing" players? I don't think you would.

Probably not, no. When I think "punishment mechanic" I think "there's a clearly good option any player with a brain will want to take. Let's make them suffer if they do that!". Rebalancing the game doesn't fall into that rubric.

[Glorelendil]

Ok...phew...we're pretty much on the same page.

leaving Defensive Stance exposes you to a massively increased chance of getting extremely fucked up and mangled.

That's a bit of hyperbole, though. If the adversary rolled an edge then he/she/it already had a pretty good chance of hitting you. Same if two tengwars were rolled. Statistically, leaving Defensive stance has the greatest impact on your chance of taking minor damage, and less impact on the chance of you taking major damage/wounds.

[Murcushio]

That's a bit of hyperbole, though.

A bit, yeah, I suppose. It might have to do with my specific group; we're often outnumbered, meaning there are "free" enemies which can pick and choose their targets. Being the only person not in Defensive will always result in a dogpile, as our GM doesn't believe in excessively idiotic enemies.