forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Hi!

I am looking for some advice on the following.

During my next session, my players will likely encounter a drunken orc guard. They will have to decide how to pass by /neutralize him so he cannot rise the alarm. I want to rule the possibility for the PCs to sneak behind the guy and slit his throat open.

I have thought of two options:

A) An easy TN 12 Stealth check (the orc is drunk) but which must generate at least a great success.

B) A TN 18 Stealth check. It is not easy to sneak behind him AND quickly find the right moment to slit his throat open.

What do you think?

The second will probably be easier due to being able to spend Hope, but I'm not certain on the math.

I don't like to mandate great or extraordinary successes for tasks. The players get to decide on the goal of an action; the Loremaster's job is to determine how difficult that goal is. An ordinary success grants the bare minimum to achieve the player's stated goal. Great and extraordinary successes give players more than what they asked for. Requiring a great success to achieve the bare minimum of what they want doesn't strike me as quite fair. It also seems to tread on the mechanics of epic feats, as well as those rolls that allow players to give extra successes to other players.

I'd also have the players check for corruption. It's probably not worth the whole 5 points for a murder, but probably still a couple of shadow points worth. Only 1 if they pass the test. Sneaking around and cutting throats isn't exactly the wink of heroes.

factors:

1 Environmental = for instance,if bottlenecked approach in a tunnel or something 1 or 2 levels harder or more above 14.

2 Circumstantial = drunk, hence 1 level easier.

Which means difficulty at least 14 but up to 18 id say.

different circumstantial or environmental factors = just do the same math but recount.

I also agree with the description made in stormcrows post.

Valarian wrote:I'd also have the players check for corruption. It's probably not worth the whole 5 points for a murder, but probably still a couple of shadow points worth. Only 1 if they pass the test. Sneaking around and cutting throats isn't exactly the wink of heroes.

Interesting post, and I'm wondering what will I do also as a GM...

Stormcrow wrote:I don't like to mandate great or extraordinary successes for tasks. The players get to decide on the goal of an action; the Loremaster's job is to determine how difficult that goal is. An ordinary success grants the bare minimum to achieve the player's stated goal. Great and extraordinary successes give players more than what they asked for. Requiring a great success to achieve the bare minimum of what they want doesn't strike me as quite fair. It also seems to tread on the mechanics of epic feats, as well as those rolls that allow players to give extra successes to other players.

True! I agree fully. Then it is a matter of setting the difficulty. If I will rule that TN12 is the difficulty to sneak pass by, may be indeed, 16 or 18 to kill him right away.

Valarian wrote:I'd also have the players check for corruption. It's probably not worth the whole 5 points for a murder, but probably still a couple of shadow points worth. Only 1 if they pass the test. Sneaking around and cutting throats isn't exactly the wink of heroes.

It is a fair point, but when it is clearly evil creatures, like orcs, I am not sure I would consider it a misdeed. I may though go for a corruption test and gaining 1 shadow point if they fail the test.

Thanks for the inputs

Yepesnopes wrote:It is a fair point, but when it is clearly evil creatures, like orcs, I am not sure I would consider it a misdeed. I may though go for a corruption test and gaining 1 shadow point if they fail the test.

If there is a fair chance to subdue the drunken Orc without slaying him then murdering him might very well count as a misdeed. However, it's your game and your call.

an orc killed guarding a passageway to where they hold the prisoners you want to free, is not by any means a consideration of shadow points at all.

Its necessary to kill him silently while trying get the prisoners out, and also pertain to not reveal you and the group to the rest of the band, which would be a TPK and failed mission. If you are not overly cruel but merely do what is necessary, its not shadow points.

NO shadow points. Anyone that argues differently can play it that way, but it certainly isnt a problem in Tolkiens middle earth when talking about shadow points and corruption. The idea goes against the ToR experience and the heroism in it. At least according to me.

If a GM gives shadow points in that situation, he is of an overly cruel and degenerate mind and GMs for the wrong reasons, and should not continue doing so. Im not pointing any fingers at anyone here. But i feel very strongly about this.

Feanor wrote: NO shadow points. Anyone that argues differently can play it that way, but it certainly isnt a problem in Tolkiens middle earth when talking about shadow points and corruption. The idea goes against the ToR experience and the heroism in it. At least according to me.

If a GM gives shadow points in that situation, he is of an overly cruel and degenerate mind and GMs for the wrong reasons, and should not continue doing so. Im not pointing any fingers at anyone here. But i feel very strongly about this.

I can see that you feel very strong about it, so I'm not going into a discussion.

“What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!'
Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.”

But I don't agree with your point of view, because, as I see it, the end doesn't justify the means in Middle-Earth.
That's what makes it different from other fantasy settings and why, in my games (which you can consider overly cruel and degenerate) this action would grant a Shadow point or, at least, a Corruption test to avoid gaining one.
And also, if the heroes managed to rescue the hostages/end the menace of orc attacks/recover a stolen artifact/... the adventure would grant them some XPs and whatever Reward was promised to them, along with the congratulations of all the Free People they could have helped.

Yepesnopes wrote: I have thought of two options:

A) An easy TN 12 Stealth check (the orc is drunk) but which must generate at least a great success.

B) A TN 18 Stealth check. It is not easy to sneak behind him AND quickly find the right moment to slit his throat open.

What do you think?

Why do you consider a standard TN14 Stealth check not suitable?
Sneaking at someone's back is difficult (higher TN), but if the target is drunk it becomes easier (lower TN). The addition of both would just turn the action into an average difficulty, IMHO.

The part about asking for test that need to generate at least a great success also intrigues me. I think it was introduced somewhere in Tales from Wilderland, but I haven't seen it anywhere else nor in the RAW (except for Called Shots). Anyone has an opinion on them? Usually, as Stormcrow said, if something is more difficult than usual, just raise the TN. Why would a great success be necessary?

I can only imagine something like that could be asked for if a task involves overcoming something magical: opening a dwarven lock, engraved with magic runes, could need a TN18 Craft roll with, at least, one Tengwar. Maybe a dwarf could just be asked for a TN 16 without the need for a Tengwar.
Or sneaking on a Woodelves' party in a clearing in Mirkwood would also need a TN18 Stealth roll with a Tengwar. Again, an elf could avoid the need for the Tengwar.

I haven't used this kind of rule, but I'm curious to know if others have.