Hate

[Majestic]

I keep feeling like I'm missing something regarding an Adversary's Hate. Multiple times I've searched the books and scoured the indexes trying to read everything about it. I even did a 'Find' on the PDFs of both original books (as well as the Clarifications document) to read every single instance where the word is used.

All I can find is that it (a) represents a creature's resolve, and (b) is used to fuel their special abilities.


But here's where I'm confused:

Last night I was running "Don't Leave the Path", the first adventure in Tales from Wilderland. The first adversaries faced are some common thugs. They each have 2 Hate Points, no special abilities, and are Craven (so are Weary when they run out of Hate). But how do I spend Hate for any of them? So how would Craven ever come into play?

[zedturtle]

When you try to Intimidate Foes on them, which you should do... they are misguided but not capital-E Evil.

I like what happened when I ran that scene... the heroes managed to get them to shove off, but our Elf decided to take it to the next level. A combat ensued with one of the brigands being maimed, one dead, one fleeing and one sobbing over his maimed and dead friends (I added one brigand to the mix, due to the number of heroes). It felt suitably tragic...

[Majestic]

My group didn't try to Intimidate, though I pointed out that option. While I agree, not capital E evil, they also were behaving pretty despicably here, robbing this single father of all of his livelihood and offering to cut the PCs in on the action.

My players chose to engage them in combat, but specifically were careful not to do permanent harm. They even spelled out how they were using non-lethal methods (the non-sharp side of a long-handled axe, for instance). Which could have backfired, had they rolled higher (and accidentally caused a wound), but they ended up only knocking them out, even one who tried to flee. One of them even spun one of the thugs around and gave a blow to one of their backsides, which was pretty fun and awesome. Our Elf wanted to take them back to town for the constable to deal with, but the others convinced him to just leave them, figuring they'll hopefully learn their lesson.

But what about the Hate points? Does it even make sense for them to have any? Does Craven even work for characters who have no way of using Hate?

[zedturtle]

I guess I wasn't clear... If your group had intimidated them, then they would have lost Hate. If they could have got them down to zero Hate then they would have fled, being craven.

[Majestic]

Oh, that's right! I forgot about that aspect of Intimidate. Thanks, zedturtle!

[Glorelendil]

Actually, in that encounter the description specifically says that they'll flee on a successful use of Awe. But I suppose that could be interpreted to mean only if you try it before combat starts. (And, of course, ultimately it's whatever the LM wants.)

[Majestic]

Actually, in that encounter the description specifically says that they'll flee on a successful use of Awe. But I suppose that could be interpreted to mean only if you try it before combat starts. (And, of course, ultimately it's whatever the LM wants.)

Yeah, I specifically asked the PCs if they wanted to use Awe or fight, and the Dwarf (this was his first scene in the game) very much wanted to throw down.

[Hermes Serpent]

This seems to me to be exactly why the LM needs to run a introductory TOR scenario that stresses combat is not the only option (except maybe in the case of servants of the shadow) in the rules. If the dwarf player had known that using Awe could have made the thugs run would he have 'thrown down'? Is the player someone who thinks the whole point of an RPG is combat? If he is then you are going to have a problem where the player and the rules part company over the style of the game.

[Stormcrow]

Rather than tell players what their options are, I prefer a chips-fall-where-they-may approach. I'll let players do whatever unimaginative thing they want, then when they're wiped out or when they have completely failed, I'll ask them, "Why did you do the thing that you were obviously going to fail at?" The answer is usually something like, "Because you put such-and-such in front of us. We were obviously supposed to do that." Then I'll ask, "Why didn't you try this alternate approach, which seems obvious in hindsight?" Their answer is invariably, "Ohhhhhhhhh!" They never make that mistake again.

Once exposed to this tough love, I find players start coming up with all sorts of imaginative solutions to problems. They just needed to realize that they were expected to THINK.

[Majestic]

This seems to me to be exactly why the LM needs to run a introductory TOR scenario that stresses combat is not the only option (except maybe in the case of servants of the shadow) in the rules.

I don't disagree (that an introductory adventure that stresses combat is not the only option for characters like this). Fortunately for us, this was about our fifth TOR session (and we play about double the length of the average, so more like the tenth). So this player was more than aware.

If the dwarf player had known that using Awe could have made the thugs run would he have 'thrown down'?

He was well aware that it could have chased them off. My guess is that - based on the character he's playing - he decided that isn't the way his character would approach this. His last character (a Barding Treasure Hunter) likely would have used that approach, but his Dwarven Slayer is much more fueled by vengeance, based on the background he chose.

Is the player someone who thinks the whole point of an RPG is combat?

Not at all. He's been playing with my gaming group (regularly) for over a decade, and I know he had RPG experience before that. He's also a regular GM (like for our Star Trek group, where things are often not combat oriented); in fact he even ran an entire old Lord of the Rings campaign that was definitely not combat oriented.

If he is then you are going to have a problem where the player and the rules part company over the style of the game.

Fortunately, he's not.