forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

.
.

The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true.
-Galadriel

Hello,
I would like your feedback on a situation that happened at our TOR gaming session. It is a matter of game psychology more so than of mechanics.

Having completed the Marsh Bell, we agreed to play the adventures in Tales from the Wilderland to gain more experience with TOR before I strike out on my own campaign scenarios.

The short version....
A player min/maxed the mechanics D&D style and used his archer to skewer Baldor to stop him from fleeing into the woods after drinking from the tainted stream, thereby ending the adventure prematurely and inadvertently robbing his fellows of their fun, adventure and earned experience.
I am considering consequences of this action.

The Details...
We were playing the "Don't Leave the Path" adventure in TftW.
When Baldor drank from the tainted waters and attempted to bolt into the woods, the player running an elvish archer on watch chose to let an arrow fly to stop Baldor, claiming to follow to the letter the advice not to leave the path.

Despite my revelation that this was part of the Narrative he insisted.

Wanting to see if he would follow through on such an action and how this would play out I did not stop him, threaten shadow gain, or offer other options, nor did I say anything about the repercussions of stopping Baldor. There was a point to be made here... just because you Can thwart the Narrative, doesn't mean you Should
He was determined to use his weapon, no other action was mentioned. Several in the group voiced various levels of disapproval, still the arrow was loosed.

The archer was prepared for action, not surprised due to Baldor's scenario monolog just before bolting, so I did not rule against this attack. And the player rolled an extremely high number, extraordinary success.
There were no stats for Baldor so I used the ones for the Thugs (sans armor) and he skewered Baldor with one shot and he fell, unconscious but not dead.

A character with healing skills tended to Baldor and I ruled that Baldor would not regain consciousness for some days later. Furthermore, Baldor was physically restrained from flight, thus effectively ending that adventure before it truly began.

I could have made an LM call to allow Baldor to escape, but I didn't. Actually I was expecting something like this would happen eventually, amazing it happened at this particular point!

This is a new group of players I don’t know. He may be coming from a D&D background that I suspect has mostly min/max type hack n slash experience where killing things is the only roleplay they know. Other fellows show good roleplaying potential however.

In my mind there was no solid reason for the adventure to continue once Baldor was stopped and restrained, since he was the thread that wove it all together.

I told the group this action closed the book on all the sub-plots presented in "Don't Leave the Path", losing the experience they would have gained, useful information, and an artifact useful in one of the other upcoming Adventures.
Let us say that the archer's action was not widely lauded by the fellowship.

I try to be lenient and fair, and I avoid the temptation to use punitive action, even though this somewhat annoyed me, and I did not want to over-react and needed time to think about what consequences may result.
Since it was nearing the end of our session I had the players roll for their travel to finish their mission to escort Baldor to Forest gate and we ended the session there. Mission accomplished.... more or much less.

I would take some time to reflect and consider consequences.

The player who shot Baldor argued that he should be rewarded something for such a great shot and saving Baldor from fleeing into the woods!

I disagreed and refused a reward saying that it was rather uncivilized to shoot one's companions, no matter the reason. My take...Rewarding such an action is not in the spirit of Middle Earth roleplay and would send the wrong message.

I wanted to teach a lesson in roleplay, and just giving a Shadow point to the particular player’s character I felt would do little towards that end. Losing the sub plots was a sharper tool and that was still steeping among the other players.

This player has been a solid player up until now, and it begs the question of why he chose to use potentially lethal force that would be considered uncivilized except maybe by Orcs.

The player in question is a DM for a D&D game. I do not wish to believe he took this action just to disrupt an entire adventure, but surely he must have recognized Baldor's scenario as a hook.

I am thinking he did not intend to ruin the adventure, and probably thought I would "make it ok". But in a situation like this consequences are demanded So I would not "fix" the situation by allowing this particular adventure to continue, as that would be condoning his action. Plus it simply was not logical since Baldor was now unconscious and woke up restrained from further activity.

Whatever the reason, I needed to address the player's roleplaying skills and try to get him out of D&D min/max mode, and into the spirit of Middle Earth roleplay.

The players, including the player in question were not happy about losing the Experience, and Fun of the "Don't leave the Path" adventure.

That in itself is a form of punishment, though punishment was not my intention. This player probably would have just shrugged off incurring a shadow point as being a no biggie. The downside, it punishes all the players and seems rather harsh a ruling.

It is my reasoning and hope that he might consider future such actions and the consequences carefully, and embrace the roleplay as intended and not just min/max this game into just another D&D hack n' slash doledrum which I and some of my friends grew weary of many years ago.

I would like to see letting the Narrative take its course and use roleplay to resolve a situation first, experience the value of following a good chase scene instead of trying to killing it at its first step, and feel the tension that can build holding out until all else fails, then when it is time for violence to speak, let fly

Luckily, one of my long-time friends plays with us, who played MERP with me for many years takes the initiative in leading with roleplay vs hack n' slash, I'm hoping his roleplay style will be an example.

Like when the fellowship first met Baldor, some in the fellowship opted just to kill the thugs outright. But my old friend parleyed first, He used his PERSUEDE to convince the thugs to leave off, called them by name, and threatened they would be reported to authorities in Dale and Laketown, Leaving the threat of the retaliatory might of the fellowship as a last resort.
This I consider a good example of Middle Earth roleplay of heroic characters.

And, This works well in a roleplay game style such as I use. The thugs would possibly be cut off from their communities or sent into exile, or at least their lives would be made harder. So they left.

I rewarded that player with an advancement point, sending the message roleplay will be rewarded.
On the way home my old friend and I discussed it, and was argued that a more bullet proof hook should have been employed in the case of Baldor, and I agreed, but I also argued that we all agreed to play the scenarios as written so we might learn TOR, and I won't start re-writing everything to suite wild and wahoo initiatives.

There are many things to consider.
I may go ahead and have the character incur shadow points for his action to satisfy the game mechanic.

The reputation of the archer is off to a questionable start to say the least. Surely this is not the kind of action an Elvish Hero of Middle Earth would take.

I am sure Baldor will tell this tale for many a year at many a place he visits. Baldor has many friends at the Elven Kings Halls, not that he remembers them. But elves have a long memory, tales travel far, and this is an unusualy shocking one and eventually, word will eventually get back to them, and the archer has friends and family there.

Also, what of Baldor's son, who witnessed the near slaying of his father at the hands of an elf? I doubt his young mind would understand the cold bloody logic of the mix/max that bought his father an arrow that nearly killed him, and there is the additional issue that perhaps Belgo might connect Baldor’s memory loss with the attack, further rousing his resentment.

Am I overthinking this?
Feedback is appreciated as I consider consequences
Namarie!

This is awesome! Seriously.

I enjoyed reading this.

Ok so here is what you got. Basically we are talking about a player who either doesn't "get" roleplaing in general and Middle-earth in particular, or you have a player who gets it but is so selfish and focused on his own enjoyment that he will intentionally ruin it for the rest.

If you have the former, there is stuff that can be done about it...if you have the patience and want to.
If you have the latter, I suggest asking him to politely leave the group. That being said I don't know what your social dynamic is, so it may not be possible.

In either case I would suggest the following:

-Don't "penalize" or punish anyone, him or the group. Treat it very matter of factly. If suggested XP awards are 1 per session plus 1 at the conclusion, and this action caused them to end the adventure in 3 sessions vs. 4, then have them earn 4 xp instead of 5. That's not a punishment so much as a matter of course (yes, you can have Friday off, of course you just don't get paid for Friday...)

-I would award him a shadow point, at least 1, possibly 2, and more if he killed Baldur. Again, not as a "punishment", just as a matter of cause and affect. "This is what happens when you do certain things in Middle-earth". Make sure it's not interpreted by him as a punishment. It's his job and his perogative to control his player as he sees fit. It's your job to do everything else, including interpreting the consequences of his actions by everybody and everything else in the cosmos (except the other players).

-Instead of trying to control how he plays his character, your job as LM is to figure out a way to use his character actions to further your own storytelling. If you think this is the kind of character he's going to play for the long haul, use him as your literary "Boromir" for you group. There are bad guys that come from within, in Middle-earth; the idea is not unprecedented and treason is a theme in Tolkien's works. Let him know what you are trying to achieve and that he can be part of your plan and there is a place for his actions. You might just be able to marshal him in.

-A common tactic I use for bloodthirsty trollish players, again, assuming they show ANY spirit of cooperation (and almost all of them do)...Recruit him as a sub-GM and give him the opportunity to control bad guy NPCs (Orcs and what not) when there is a fight.

Hi, I'm new to the forum. This question really hooked my attention. Since reading the rules and some of the supplements, the game seems a great emulation of the LR. All that said, why not 3 Shadow points from a pure mechanical response? Then, on top of that, the story consequences you flesh out?

The reason I ask is that I recently read the Loremaster's Guide and the table for Misdeeds lists unprovoked aggression and suggests 3 Shadow points. Here's a quote I particularly liked: "Such misdeeds can be the result of an accident or misunderstanding, but could also result from the temptation to achieve a noble goal by nefarious means. In a time when the Darkness is growing ever stronger, those who fight it must master and overcome the darker impulses within themselves."

I agree with the rules on misdeeds, and I have no problem envisioning such a Middle-earth. I have been wondering how this plays out and how players accept a game with consequences instead of alignments. Hope that makes sense?

Any comments, instruction, or pennies would be really appreciated!

I'd definitely apply the appropriate shadow points as per the rules - not as a punishment, but because this is how things work in Middle Earth. An unprovoked attack on a defencless allied person is a dark act - something is slipping inside that person to allow them to do such a thing. The shadow is growing stronger.

This will also encourage the player to try to keep actions in a middle earth context unless they wish to risk going totally off the rails with the character.

The ?3? shadow points means that person needs to keep a closer eye on their hope - or they'll be heading for a temporary bout of madness soon - followed by a permanent shadow point and a flaw.

However - do make it clear this isn't punishing the player for the actions, but invoking the rules of the setting.

No matter what happens, if a player of mine had done that, he would have gained Shadow
Equally, I don't quite understand why you decided the adventure could not continue? When I ran the adventure, Baldor failed to escape, so I had Attercops attack the camp, and my player merely missed out on the spider castle. I also don't see why Baldor failing to escape means the storm cannot drive the party into the company of the Hermit, nor why it stops them from being influenced by the trees and the well.

Also... maybe don't tell your entire party that they've missed out on the entire adventure? If you're playing with a few people because you want to act out the adventures as written, by all means: I did it with Of Leaves and Stewed Hobbit when my player managed to save Dindy. But if you're playing as a 'proper' group, just keep going and don't tell them they missed out at all. And again, I don't understand why you couldn't continue the rest of the adventure. I don't even find Baldor as important as his son for the majority of the quest. That's my penny's worth anyway

Beleg

Hello
And thanks for the replies!

QUOTE-Rocmistro

-Don't "penalize" or punish anyone, him or the group. Treat it very matter of factly. If suggested XP awards are 1 per session plus 1 at the conclusion, and this action caused them to end the adventure in 3 sessions vs. 4, then have them earn 4 xp instead of 5. That's not a punishment so much as a matter of course (yes, you can have Friday off, of course you just don't get paid for Friday...)

That is a good idea, I have been assigning 2 XP per session, I am a generous LM, but looking at it that way, it makes sense. Assign an XP for the player showing up for the session, and a second for reasonable progress.
We started the day introducing two new players, and I ran a scenario to get their characters to where they needed to be, while the other players patiently waited during this couple hours. Then we started the "Don't Leave the Path" adventure, and it progressed to the point posted in this topic.

I am wondering about XP assignment in this case as the game progressed without incedent until this point. I am considering this, and gut feeling is to award the two for each player. Losing the sub plots and gaining 3 Shadow is substantial loss as it is.

QUOTE- William, Wraithben

Your reply is on the mark William. Wraithben thank you for pointing out and reconfirming for me the "Misdeeds", "Unprovoked Attack" clause.
During the game when this happened I did not consult the Misdeeds chart, and one of the new players pointed out on the LM Screen the chart, but I did not assign any points, as I wanted to reflect and study the rules and contemplate before making a ruling. I didn't want to make a mistake and award too little or too many. It was towards the end of our session and a good time to break and do this.

At home after the game I read the LM book carefully and had time to contemplate. I agree, this action would fall under the "Misdeeds" category, "Unprovoked Attack" , no matter the "good intention" of the player to prevent Baldor from running off, still, using potentially lethal force is what I, and I am sure most others, would consider an unsavory and dark act for a Fellowship Hero.

This is the reason I posted here, I do not wish to be too harsh and needed a jury of my LM colleagues so to speak to confirm my considerations.
As I mentioned, I wish to be fair and un-condeming. I like to issue rewards. So if this player intends on playing a Dark elf, this could be considered and "award" of Shadow. Then it would beg the question, would the group retain this elf's services as a member of this Fellowship? It goes against the grain to have an Dark elf in this group. And the game system as it stands does not support the idea of a Dark Fellowship.... lol thats an oxymoron isn't it.

As for eliminating the player, I feel that he is a good player, and knows the rules well. He also hosts our sessions in the hospitality of his home, provides for our needs, printing docs, internet, large screen LCD to display maps, and he buys us pizza! A good guy overall.

I just don't know what his thought processes are to take such an action, other than to manipulate the mechanics to achieve an end. The action clearly disrupted the Narrative, causing a net loss of game play, experience points, and possibly group trust. I certainly have my doubts.

I am hoping he would embrace the spirit of this game system and play along with the Narrative as presented, and not one of those who wish to thwart them for his own pleasure just because he can.

That would present a problem for the entire group, nobody else would have fun. I would rather not subject the other players to repeated Misdeeds and frustrations. And I...personally am too old for all that crap.

I should be spending my precious time writing scenarios and sharing ideas instead of posts like this.

Thank you all so much!
Namarie!!
.
.
.

Thanks for your reply Beleg.

Your questions are understandable, and I question this myself. I certainly don't wish to seem vindictive.

At the time, given the situation, and the dynamics of the group I thought it logical that since Baldor was stopped dead in his tracks, and did not lead the Narrative any longer, it broke the chain of events.

I did not want to start rethinking how I could make this adventure work and second guessing the intentions of the author. I was familiar with the adventure but I didn't study it in depth enough to start manipulating it.
After all, There are other adventures to be had.

However, I am contemplating how I could possibly salvage parts of the "Don't leave the Path" adventure in the future.

Why would I tell the group the adventure was concluded prematurely?... simply that we had all agreed to play the adventures as written to learn TOR. I felt they needed to know the consequences simply as a learning experience.

It's my belief that to disrupt the Narrative with min/maxing is really not good roleplay. Thats the crux of it, to demonstrate how disruptive actions can alter the course of an adventure.

If this were my own Narrative, I would make accommodations and move on, using the scenarios later, as you describe, not saying anything about what was missed. Having been a GM for many years I am well aware that sometimes things don't always go 100% according to plan and one must adapt. So Beleg, you are right on the mark.

It was an LM call made in the heat of the moment based on previous GM experince, while learning the intricacies of this new system, one I felt was right given the situation.

I believe the group backed the ruling as a logical conclusion of a misdeed, and I believe most of them agree it was a misdeed given their reactions at the table that day. Perhaps some of them might join this discussion and voice their thoughts.

I am hoping what will be gained with this ruling is better roleplay during Narratives. Thats all.

Thanks!
.
.
.

I understand your reasoning better now
I'm also very glad your players agree that, with the rules, the action of this particular player counts as a misdeed. I also don't think they need to be removed from the group, nor do I think you need to worry *too* much about min/maxing. The worst thing I've encountered so far is the ability for woodmen to have ridiculously high Parry ratings in certain circumstances. However, I do think you should maybe talk to the player in question and ask they try not to do things so obvious to derail the adventure. Having read your reply, I understand why Baldor's inability to move led you to end the adventure, and I feel you could point out that the player could have tackled Baldor or something, and the majority of the adventure could have continued unmolested

Yeah I'll have a talk with him. I don't think he's an unreasonable guy. All will be well, There are adventures to be had!

I am going to chime in. I am one of the players in this group, Glourn the dwarven slayer. My thoughts are as such: I too don't believe Arandir's shot was done with evil intent, but I highly believe it was impulsive and most definitely in acting against the groups desire. Several of us asked him not to make the shot but he did it anyway. Aren't there some pretty clear gruidelines about acting against the group's wishes? I would not think an Elf of Middle Earth would intentionally hurt another being, when he could easily run him down and have tackled him. It should be noted that two of us called for our characters to start running after him, this was apparently ignored in favor of letting Arandir take his shot. After the action was played most of us then just went with the flow and agreed with the LM decision because the LM made it clear the campaign was done. So what reason was there to make any more of the situation? It became an issue between the LM and Arandir, the rest of us were just left in the wake of that. I was not happy with it, but I'll live with it for the sake of the Fellowship. But we do need to lay some guidelines down for the group, as a group, so that we all have an idea of boundaries, expectations, and shared vision of our direction. I assume, ideally, this is supposed to be a collaborative effort? One thing I do want to not, Venger you spend alot of time distancing yourself from the material, saying things like "I would not have written it this way." or "This isn't the direction I would have taken." The message I am getting from you is "I think this stuff is utter crap, but we'll play it anyway because it has training wheels on it" If you aren't happy with something then please, feel free the change it to suit your style. I personally, don't want to play material a LM doesn't like because it if isn't liked or embranced then logic dictates it wont be played out very well or to it's potential. Just my thoughts.