The Defensive Stance "Problem"

[Glorelendil]

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.

Ah...

Besides not being RAW (both because of how adversaries are supposed to be assigned, and because of the maximum 3 on 1 rule), I would definitely count that as forcing players to all choose Defensive stance. You might suggest to him that enemies who attack the crazy guy swinging his sword like a banshee might also count as idiotic. If I were an orc I'd go after Pippin and leave Boromir to my, um, "friends".

[Stormcrow]

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.

I've been saying this all along!

[Murcushio]

Besides not being RAW (both because of how adversaries are supposed to be assigned, and because of the maximum 3 on 1 rule), I would definitely count that as forcing players to all choose Defensive stance.

... it's not? How so?

He never violates three on one, but three of anything can take an enormous whack off your Endurance if they're swinging against of TN somewhere between 10 and 13. As for engagement... according to the rules, you choose stances, then Engagement happens, and if the enemies outnumber you, the GM gets to assign the excess (after giving everybody in a close combat stance at least one) any way they see fit.

In fact looking at them again, in the example of Engagement given, a bunch of Attercops go after Beran specifically because he's easy to hit, having the lowest Parry and being in Forward. That's right in the text.

So I'm not sure what our GM could be doing wrong if every time one of us goes into Open or Forward and are the only one doing so, that person ends up with every excess assignable enemy possible assigned to them.

Also, engaging a properly-built Hobbit is crazy under TOR rules no matter the stance. Those guys are tiny little murder machines that are impossible to hit and have a stupefyingly efficient means of transforming Hope into Wounds. If I were an Orc, I'd take the Beorning every time.

[Glorelendil]

I thought you meant he was switching adversaries mid-fight to anybody who changed to a less-defensive stance.

[Murcushio]

I thought you meant he was switching adversaries mid-fight to anybody who changed to a less-defensive stance.

... he is?

As near as both he and I can determine, you do engagement during every combat round, after stances are chosen. Not just once, at the beginning of the fight. Our fellowship often chooses to engage a different enemy as circumstances change, for example, as do our enemies. But we can only change who we're engaging during the appropriate time period.

So yeah, he is in fact switching adversaries mid-fight to anybody who changes to a less defensive stance, assuming that the enemies are allowed to be assigned that way. Obviously if the Fellowship is picking targets he doesn't have that luxury.

[Glorelendil]

Funny,I always assumed it worked the way you describe, but there was debate on these forums about when heroes should be allowed to change their targets, and I accepted that without digging into the rules myself. But I just went and looked at the rules, which say "When every player has determined the stance his hero will fight in, all combatants must engage one or more opponents." It does not say "at the beginning of combat", and the location of the passage in the text suggests that this happens every round.

In any event, to rewind several posts and get back on topic, if your LM is "dog-piling" on anybody who leaves Defensive stance, I would suggest that is "punishment" equal to or more so than any rule changes people have proposed to make other stances more desirable.

[Murcushio]

The thing is, doesn't that raise its own issues of mechanical balance?

Logically speaking, who are the Orcs going to target? The guys huddled behind their shields and/or in defensive chance they have almost no chance to hit, or the crazed berserker in Forward who they practically have to work at in order to miss?

Enemies shouldn't have to be shit-stupid in order for the mechanics to work. If four people are in Defensive and one person is in Open or Forward, and the enemy has people to spare, logically they're going to go after the easy target, because that's the smart thing to do. Maybe some enemies are dumb, but they shouldn't all be dumb.

I would note that our own Fellowship works on this philosophy. When we fought a Great Spider with an Attercop escrot, we concentrated on all of the Attercops first, who could be wiped out without a lot of trouble, to give us a free hand with the big guy. Trolls with a goblin escort, same deal. When we fought that orc war-band, we saved the chief for last.

We go after soft targets before hard targets unless circumstances dictate otherwise, because it maximizes survivability and we assume our characters really would like to live. I would generally assume our foes would do the same thing.

[Glorelendil]

I've seen enough players make really bad tactical choices in picking targets that I would expect the same of adversaries, unless I was granting them the same intelligence, organization, and teamwork that a crack group of veterans might possess. But goblins? Spiders? Undead?

And again (humor about OP hobbits aside), is the smart orc going to attack Boromir, or leave him to his "friends" while he "takes care of that Hobbit over there..."

Also, in the heat of battle it might not be that wise to turn your back on the guy with the shield just because somebody else, who you weren't even paying attention to, suddenly started going all Bruce Lee over there.

Finally, choice of stance, particularly if it changes mid-fight might not be something that you broadcast. I don't imagine it literally means you are backing up and hiding behind your shield; rather it means you're going to err on the side of caution and not expose yourself as much. So you miss a chance at some good shots (higher TN to hit) but you're quicker on the parry (higher TN to be hit.) It might take an opponent...one that's actually fighting you, let alone one that's focused on your companion...a while before he/she/it realizes you've changed tactics.

[Murcushio]

We've fought our share of enemies that make bad decisions, but in general our enemies are just as smart as we are, and we rarely fail to capitalize on obvious combat openings, so our GM is of the opinion our enemies won't either. In practice, unless he's explicitly playing them down, our enemies making bad tactical choices is equivalent to the GM making a bad tactical choice, the same as how when our characters make bad tactical choices it is because their players did.

(To an extent, this is artificial. My Beorning really ought to run in aggressively and provoke fights and make decisions that a more rational-minded person wouldn't a lot more than she does, to be in-character. But I am playing in a group game, and the other players have made it clear they would prefer I both not get them all killed, and that they not have to invest a lot of time cleaning up my messes. And I oblige them because I'm considerate of my friends.)

Also... goblins might have Craven, but until they run out of hate they're no more cowardly than anyone else, and there are only two kinds of actual listed goblins; the rest are orcs. In fact, one would expect goblins to be smarter than orcs to begin with and to be better at making decisions on the field of battle because they aren't giant super-soldiers like the orcs are.

Spiders specifically are smart as all feck. They tend to have two or three dice in their Perception skills. Even Attercops aren't dumb.

Undead, yeah, those are just mindless goons, I agree there. Well... most of them are. Sometimes you find one that's very, very smart.

I actually don't get your Boromir example. Orcs are bloodthirsty and brave and aggressive. They were built to be bloodthirsty and brave and aggressive. A lot of orcs would love to fight Boromir! They get glory and loot and make themselves look big and important.

You are, of course, right that combat doesn't take place in instances of perfect transparency. But, again, our GM, and I agree with him 100% on this, assumes that our enemies are for the most part (we've fought some REALLY dumb fuckers, Viglundings mostly, those guys are just... not intelligent in our game)just as smart and observant as we are and have the same "interface" that we do; that is, he assumes they know their TN to hit any roll they have to make, they know how much Endurance and Hate they have, they know if they've inflicted a Wound or not. Stuff like that.

[Falenthal]

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.

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.

Although I've been playing my first games with the house-rule of "Forward allows for a maximum of 3 Tengwars/Damage, Open for 2 and Defensive for 1", I have to agree with your logic.
Parry rating doesn't scale, but you can "scale" your TN to be hit.

On the other hand, I see how my dwarven and beorning players like to be in Forward stance -regardless of numbers and TNs- because it's how they imagine their characters would face goblins and wolves. Once their weapon ranks rise, I wouldn't like to also force them into Defensive stance because Forward or even Open doesn't make sense or doesn't get them any more benefits than Defensive.

That said, I just thougt that you're right in that Defensive stance shouldn't be made worse. But here's an idea that just popped out of my mind:

All stances
Attack multiple foes: The hero can substract 2 ranks from his weapons skill for every foe above 1 he wants to attack in the same round. The hero must be engaged with those foes.

OR

Rise the TN to hit (but not to be hit) by 3 for every foe above 1 the hero wants to attack in the same round. The hero must be engaged with those foes.

This maneuver can be used also in Defensive stance, although the greater difficulty to hit makes it more appropiate for Forward or Open stance. In fact, it should only become really useful for "high level" characters against "low level" enemies (goblins, attercops,...).

The first questions that rise for me next are:
Can I reduce my weapon skill/ raise the to hit TN to attack twice or thrice the same target?
Can a hero in Rearward stance also use this maneuver?

I will have to think about this.