Traits - prolonged tasks

[Lorimez]

Morning

Can I ask, what other LM do when your players use traits with pro-longed taks? (I.e. sneaking into a complex and using say small to automatically succeed)

As it is a task do you rule they can't use Traits?

I only ask as it can sometimes kill "tense" moments and I've tended to deny them the use of them too much.

Thanks

Lorimez

[Falenthal]

I allow them to be used always as long as:
1) The difficulty is 14 or lower (Traits can't make you autosucceed at something that is very difficult, TN16+)
2) Of course, if you don't need to roll Tengwars to succeed (as when looking for a hidden dwarven cache by non-dwarves).

With this rules, prolonged tasks become more interesting for characters with certain Traits, as they might allow to reduce certain TNs to 14 or below and make their Traits usable.

[Falenthal]

Oh, I just remembered a third situation where I normally don't allow the use of Traits for autosucceed:

3) When failing or rolling a certain number (usually an Eye) has special consequences. The best example is Fatigue checks, where an Eye has special consequences, even if not a failure. In this particular example (Fatigue tests) a balance could be found where the hero is granted an autosucceed for Hardy, for instance, if travelling through terrains of TN 14 or less, but he still has to roll the Feat die to see if an Eye comes out. The triggering of a Hazard is independent of the success or failure of the Faigue test, it's a mechanic where you get two different informations from a single roll.

The text that I find most interesting regarding when to allow or not autosucces is this:

The Loremaster may agree with a Trait invocation to speed
up play, especially if failing at the roll would not lead to
dramatically relevant consequences, or if the action wasn’t
difficult.

[Stormcrow]

There is no reason why players can't use their traits as often as they like. If they short-circuit something you'd planned because they use a trait over and over again... good for them! They're playing smart! Don't punish them because you didn't anticipate their good tactics. No player wants to hear "you can't do that again because it makes the adventure too easy."

It's up to you, the Loremaster, to come up with challenges that they CAN'T short-circuit with their traits, or, if they do, there is a cost to doing so. Furthermore, not every trait invocation will be appropriate. Maybe being Small will get a hobbit past the first guard, who's not paying close attention, but the second guard is guarding a point much smaller, that doesn't allow even a Small character to get through unnoticed.

Or maybe a prolonged task is the wrong way to go about presenting the scene. Sneaking into a complex involves more than just rolling Stealth a bunch of times. Make the players decide on specific decisions at various points throughout the complex. Prolonged tasks should only be used in circumstances where the situation doesn't change in between rolls, except that the players are making progress. Sneaking through a guarded complex doesn't strike me as such a circumstance.

This last point is probably the most important. Tension in the game does not come from rolling dice; it comes from making decisions. If you've obviously got no choice but to roll Stealth, there's no tension there, even if you can't call upon a trait to automatically succeed. Construct your adventures so the players have to decide what to do, not just what to roll.

[Majestic]

I had the same question a while back and the solution I came to (after feedback from people here) was to go with the following clarification:

Only one Automatic Action may be done per Scene (or per leg of a Journey).

I know this issue has come up numerous times before on this forum as well, for instance here and here.

There is no reason why players can't use their traits as often as they like.

I think it dramatically removes and reduces the tension to have them invoking a Trait over and over again. It also could give auto successes in scenes that otherwise should be dramatic. For instance, in our last game the PCs were shaking in their boots when they first met the dragon Raenar. Due to their being a really inexperienced newcomer in the party, their Tolerance was an amazingly low 1! I allowed the Woodsman spokesperson to invoke True-hearted a single time, but after that the group needed to roll.

[Morgoth]

I agree with Stormcrow's statement. If they're making a prolonged task, the TN is 14 or less, and they have the right trait, let them use it! That's what traits are for.

It's also important to realize if they're always using their traits to auto-succeed, they're not using their traits to gain AP. That should be enough motivation for players to not overuse the auto-succeed ability of their traits.

[Glorelendil]

The rules are pretty explicit on two things:
1) Automatic success via trait is not a right; it's the LM's call.
2) It is best reserved for circumstances in which the outcome doesn't have major consequences for the story.

So if the result of failing the prolonged test is simply some Endurance loss or Fatigue gain, or having to fight an extra pack of Attercops, or something else that causes a hiccup but doesn't otherwise alter the trajectory/outcome of the adventure, then allowing the trait to be used lets the player feel all sneaky or swift or hardy or whatever without impacting the fun for the other players.

In fact, maybe that should be the test: will allowing auto-success alter the experience for other players?* If the answer is yes, make them roll.

[Stormcrow]

It is best reserved for circumstances in which the outcome doesn't have major consequences for the story.

I disagree. You generally shouldn't be rolling dice for anything that doesn't have significant consequences for the story. Players should get automatic successes for anything the Loremaster agrees is correctly covered by the trait.

In fact, maybe that should be the test: will allowing auto-success alter the experience for other players?*

Ugh. That kind of metagaming is dangerous. The Loremaster shouldn't change how traits work based on the mood of the players.

An example of an automatic action in the rule book is one in which a player uses a trait to detect an ambush. This is a pretty important situation, not a throwaway action. Automatic actions are not just for inconsequential situations.

[Glorelendil]

-1




Couldn't resist that.

1) You're not disagreeing, you're misreading. You are saying the same thing the book is, which I in turn am paraphrasing.
2) "Mood"? Huh? Another case of misreading, or at least misinterpreting?
3) The example in the book is a great example of what we are all violently agreeing on: detecting the Ambush will have a bearing only on the beginning of combat, but presumably the party is going to have to fight the ambusher either way, so the consequences are minimal. (If, on the other hand, the party had a chance to avoid combat completely and it was a serious adversary, then I'd make him roll.)

[Lorimez]

Thanks all.

Figured what I'm going to discuss with the players and the small changes we will make

Lorimez