Rules clarifications

[Shadrack]

I just checked back for the previous thread as many of you seem to have no ability to search for information.

A January 15th 2013 thread entitled "Disarmed, How hard is it to get a weapon back?" from the Forum Archive discussed the loss of a weapon for a number of posts and made a number of suggestions before someone pointed out that the description of the Thick Hide monster trait had the best answer.

Is that first sentence really necessary?
You go through the effort to point out where the answer is hidden, but still insist on not actually writing what it says, forcing us to go look it up ourselves?
I get the point. You get really annoyed when people can't search as well as you can.

[Hermes Serpent]

I get annoyed by lazy people who don't look to see if the question has already been answered.

[PST]

I get annoyed by lazy people who don't look to see if the question has already been answered.

You know this thread raises questions that I find difficult to understand. TOR has a forum that is very active and people get swift and accurate answers often from the people who wrote the material and yet someone is asking a random bunch of folks on the Internet for answers to often quite complex game questions.

I wonder why she chose to post not to the publisher's forum but a random bunch of geeks who may or may not have a clue.

This is a pretty clear example of why people might post anywhere but here. In the thread linking to rpg.net you claimed that TOR has a forum where 'people get swift and accurate answers', but instead of giving that, you just attack the person for asking the question in the first place.

When my group take time out before the session to say 'how bad has the C7 one ring forum been this week', posts like yours are the reason why.

[Jon Hodgson]

I get annoyed by lazy people who don't look to see if the question has already been answered.

Hermes, you are getting a reputation. Please think about being more accommodating to new users of our forums. I've made some oblique references to this idea in general, and some more specific posts. Now I'm telling you - lighten up, please.

Thank you.

[Jon Hodgson]

When my group take time out before the session to say 'how bad has the C7 one ring forum been this week', posts like yours are the reason why.

This is equally uncalled for. Please consider using the report post button if you have a problem with any of our users or posts they make. Thanks!

[Michebugio]

I completely agree with the fact that people should really use the Search function more, as many threads and questions seem to constantly clone themselves, sometimes. Expecially for simple topics where a single keyword would be easy to find.

This said, I don't understand being so harsh with those people, or pointing that out with so little accomodation. If I get annoyed by the fifteenth thread about Dual Wielding, I simply avoid it: at worst, it's the moderators' job to close it.

Live and let live.

[Eluadin]

@Shadrack This is a really good question! While I don't have an official answer, I can offer the logic I've used since we began with the original core set.

I take a similar stance to that stated earlier: I keep it focused on the narrative. The rules describe close combat-rounds where opponents “exchange blows in the thick of the fight, using close combat weapons” (AB, 158). A little soft I know, but “the thick if the fight” makes me think - no time to recover your weapon without exposing yourself…

I connected that with the way I read coup de grâce: “An unconscious, or otherwise defenceless, hero is killed automatically if an opponent has the time to administer a coup de grâce (one combat turn). The action doesn’t require a roll, but the adversary must possess the means to kill the character quickly and efficiently” (AB, 144). Take the time to pick up your weapon, and the chance of a killing shot ending your heroic career are pretty high in the thick fighting.

But most heroes find themselves tied by deep bonds of Fellowship, and my games (I’m a Loremaster) have seen some inventive storytelling initiative assumed by my player-heroes! On the other hand, I’ve used similar narrative-logic to save a defenseless adversary from a player-hero’s killing blow:

Disarmed. Forfeit combat action to recover weapon. Defenceless player-hero target of a coup de grâce. Fellowship companion intervenes with a Task in Combat: Protect Companion. The defenceless player-hero recovers weapon and skewers opponent next round. The Tale of Years has another memorable entry.

Player-hero disarms adversary. Disarmed hardened adversary takes next round to make brawling attack. The Hardened trait allowed him to convert the extra-ordinary success into a “quasi-knockback” creating the space for him to recover his weapon.

My players learned that one quick: a reckless player-hero invokes her trait to recover a weapon. I allow a Task roll. All in all, I've used the narrative, Trait invocation, and the idea behind a coup de grâce to rule on this. (I wasn't fond personally of the mechanical solution provided in other threads. But that's my own preference for narrative; that as opposed to hard and fast rules in these areas.)

Just another thought offered in the spirit of Fellowship!

Scott

Ps. Thank you Jon for the invoking the forum's True-hearted trait!

[zedturtle]

When my group take time out before the session to say 'how bad has the C7 one ring forum been this week', posts like yours are the reason why.

This is equally uncalled for. Please consider using the report post button if you have a problem with any of our users or posts they make. Thanks!

Jon, can we get another option on the report list, something to the effect of "This post is not contributing to a positive sense of community" or whatever y'all are comfortable with?

Or, is there is an existing category that you'd prefer be used?

[Rocmistro]

Well personally I like it when new people ask the same old questions. It gives me the opportunity to sound smart and all TOR-grognard, and that's like, you know...a personality that I'd like to cultivate for myself...or something.

Only problem is Elfcrusher (aka, Glorelendoreanilolorinor) or Zed Turtle usually beat me to it.

[jamesrbrown]

Love the game.

Me too! It's definitely my favorite RPG of all! In fact, I was just telling a friend about the game the other day and he's interested in giving it a try. This is good news since my gaming group has literally scattered around the world. The last of my faithful is headed off to a year's tour in Africa with the U.S. Army.

Example is a party fighting fewer enemies. Two characters engaged with one enemy. One player is in open stance, the other in defensive.
Open stance player kills the enemy.
Noe the defensive player has no enemy. Can he move to attach another enemy in close combat that may be on another player?

I've always felt this was an area of the rules that needed more explanation and a clear combat example. Perhaps for the eventual third printing of the game it can be addressed. Or maybe the Adventurer's Companion can do the job.

The way I've always handled engagements is to first remind myself about the rules that are clearly stated already. So, when the companions outnumber their opponents (or have an equal number) they get to choose engagements. Therefore, I would have no problem with a player-hero without an engagement in this situation choosing his opponent. However, if the number of adversaries was greater, the Loremaster would have the privilege of choosing the player-hero's next engagement.

For example, if there were three player-heroes all in close-combat against six Orcs, the Loremaster could choose to put 3 Orcs on one hero, 2 on the second one, and 1 on the last. If the last hero killed his opponent first, he would be without an engagement. Since there are still 5 Orcs against 3 player-heroes, the Loremaster would get to decide which adversary(s) wanted to break away from their current engagements to fight the last hero. If the Loremaster didn't want to break those engagements, he could just let the player-hero choose his next target.

At first this sounds complicated, but really it is very simple. Just compare the current number of player-heroes and enemies and apply the rules for engagements and eligible targets.

I think the rule of majority numbers and choosing engagements is important because it limits target choice for those in the minority, rather than always giving player-heroes what they want. Having this as a rule is brilliant because the players will never get the idea the Loremaster just hates them, and at times the Loremaster will be the hero when he chooses to let the player in the minority decide.